Re: What is expected: exclude action on the never list?
Steve Grubb wrote:
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 16:45, Michael C Thompson wrote:
>I would read the second rule as saying "do not exclude messages of type
>SYSCALL". Is this a correct interpretation of the rule?
That sounds reasonable, but I don't think that's what the kernel does. Maybe
it should be corrected. I think its a 1 or 2 liner.
According to the manpage, I'd say the kernel is behaving as expected.
"Never" means never generate an audit record and "exclude" means even
if
one was generated, it should be excluded. The two options together are
somewhat redundant but I don't think "never" was intended to mean
"never
do what the previous option just said to do", at least not according to
the manpage.
-- ljk