[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Q on audit, audit-syscall
    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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-04-06 15:00    [W:0.023 / U:6.956 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site