lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Q on audit, audit-syscall
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-04-06 15:00    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans