Re: [RFC][PATCH] collect security labels on user processes generating audit messages

On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 11:22 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: > This should be a separate thread since the topic is different. > > On Wednesday 15 February 2006 11:14, Linda Knippers wrote: > > Amy submitted a patch a while back to eliminate the "name=" field > > to avoid "name=(null)" from the audit records if there was no name > > but I don't think the patch went anywhere. > > Right. I want all audit fields to have name=value. If we have %s in the > message and pass NULL to it, snprintf is already going to put "(null)" so > what's wrong with just using this precedent? In that case, Tim doesn't need a special check for !ctx in his code at all.