Re: pam_tty_audit icanon log switch
----- Original Message -----
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 04:07:08PM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 03:31:36PM -0400, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/audit.h b/include/uapi/linux/audit.h
> > > index 9f096f1..a863669 100644
> > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/audit.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/audit.h
> > > @@ -369,7 +369,8 @@ struct audit_status {
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct audit_tty_status {
> > > - __u32 enabled; /* 1 = enabled, 0 = disabled */
> > > + __u32 enabled; /* 1 = enabled, 0 = disabled */
> > > + __u32 log_icanon; /* 1 = enabled, 0 = disabled */
> > > };
> >
> > Also, would it make sense for the user-space API to be more general
> > about expressing the intent ("log passwords")? I don't know,
being
> > precise about the exact effect of the option is also beneficial.
>
> Hmmm, I'll have to ponder that...
I am inclined to leave it named as is for precision.
I suggested it might be better to change the name because with (icanon & !echo) being
the discriminator, "log_icanon" is no longer precise. I can't think of an
identifier that is both precise and understandable - neither log_icanon_noecho or
log_passwords are the obvious possibilities, neither makes me enthusiastic.
Perhaps it doesn't matter that much what the audit_tty_status member is called -
that's an implementation aspect and anybody touching this needs to understand the
precise effects regardless of the name of the member. The pam_tty_audit option name is
user-visible and should be easy to understand and use. (I'm not sure changing the
topic like this is an improvement - it seems natural to use the same name for both, and
even the users may need to understand the implications of icanon & !echo; I'm just
hoping this might lead to better suggestions.)
Mirek