Re: [RFC PATCH] New audit message for NetLabel static/fallback labels

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 4:21:26 pm Linda Knippers wrote: > Paul Moore wrote: > > For reference, here are four examples of the new message types pulled > > from a Fedora Rawhide machine running this patch: > > > > * adding new fallback label using network interface "lo" and > > address "127.0.0.0/8" > > > > type=UNKNOWN[1416] msg=audit(1195671777.849:32): netlabel: \ > > auid=0 subj=root:system_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 \ > > netif=lo daddr=127.0.0.0 daddr_mask=8 \ > > sec_obj=system_u:object_r:unlabeled_t:s0 res=1 > > At the risk of being nit-picky, it seems like the convention for network > addresses is either separate address and netmask fields, or the combined > address/bits-in-netmask notation. For example, ifconfig (on ubuntu, > anyway) uses the former for IPv4 and the later for IPv6 addresses. > > lo Link encap:Local Loopback > inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 > inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host > > These audit records separate the two values but use the bits-in-netmask > instead of the netmask in dot notation, which seems inconsistent to me. > Seems like the audit record above should either have an address of > 127.0.0.0/8 or an address of 127.0.0.0 and a netmask of 255.0.0.0. I agree in that I like seeing the netmask attached to the address, but when I posed the question earlier to the list there was concern that this would cause breakage in the tools. I just thought of something, would you be more comfortable if I changed the name from 'daddr_mask' to 'daddr_prefixlen'?