![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 16:16 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > --- James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote: > > > > No. The inode design is simply correct. > > If this were true audit records would not be required > to contain path names. Names are important. To meet > EAL requirements path names are demonstrably > insufficient, but so too are inode numbers. Unless > you want to argue that Linux is unevaluateable > (a pretty tough position to defend) because it > requires both in an audit record you cannot claim > either is definitive. audit != SELinux, simple as that And yes audit on filenames is not too useful, but it is in some cases: Consider the case where you want to log that someone tried to unlink a file that doesn't exist. Inodes aren't going to do you any good ;) - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-04-19 07:25 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||