Re: [RFC] Testcase Scenarios for Auditfs Code
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 13:16 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Tuesday 26 April 2005 11:38, Loulwa F Salem wrote:
> Please give feedback if you can think of any scenarios that I have not
> considered, or modifications that I need to implement.
It also might be good to try some files who's name is NAME_MAX in length. And
try to watch some files who's path + name is PATH_MAX in size. This is just
to make sure we can handle these correctly. You might also try passing
something bigger than these to make sure error cases are handled.
I think she has plans to do this for functional verification tests.
What she's trying to do with these is demonstrate that the auditfs code
fufills the CAPP requirement (ie: auditability is preserved given the
scenario or not preserved given the scenario).
Stephen does bring up a flaw, I believe, where an incore inode can leave
because of memory stress, and come back via the hard link, causing us to
lose auditability. So I need to address this.
-tim
-Steve
--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit(a)redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit