Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Q on audit, audit-syscall | From | Stephen Smalley <> | Date | Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:01:48 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 23:47 +0200, Herbert Rosmanith wrote: > > happened, this is what you want. If you want to apply a security restriction, > > you want to look at SELinux or perhaps a custom LSM. If you have some > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > the idea already crossed my mind. but I rather start bottom up: LSM depends > on CONFIG_AUDIT* (this is correct, isn't it?), so I examine AUDIT first. if > AUDIT doesnt support what I need, I continue with LSM.
SELinux has a dependency on CONFIG_AUDIT these days because it uses the audit system to log permission denials (originally just used printk, but switched to the audit system when it was mainstreamed), but SELinux doesn't depend on CONFIG_AUDIT for the actual access control checking and enforcement. SELinux just feeds data to the audit system for such logging; it doesn't take any inputs from the audit system.
-- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |