Re: repost of loginuid patches
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 19:15, Serge Hallyn wrote:
I thought we had decided not to introduce a special case, and to
just
let 4294967295 signify unset.
I'm open to either behavior. Just let me know if we want -1.
I think that handling it with %u is fine, and comparing against
(uid_t)-1 in userspace.
I think we expect count to always be PAGE_SIZE, so really the first
two
lines shouldn't even be necessary. sel_read_enforce doesn't check for
it.
simple_read_from_buffer() makes sure that you don't overflow, and if the
caller provides too small of a buffer, it is up to him to continue
reading until he hits the end of the "file". I think this code should
be simplified along the lines of sel_read_enforce. Did you mean to use
scnprintf?
You'll want consistency, either auid or loginuid, not a mix. loginuid
is more consistent with the existing code.
Minor nit: In the AUDIT_USER messages, I'd put the loginuid right after
the uid, not after the length (which is logically coupled with the msg).
Otherwise, I'd encourage you to take these to lkml.
--
Stephen Smalley <sds(a)epoch.ncsc.mil>
National Security Agency