Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: add feature audit_lost reset

On Friday, December 9, 2016 6:46:43 PM EST Paul Moore wrote: > > I would suggest that the return value (presuming it was reset when > > non-zero) or the audit record generated reporting the lost value > > reset would be sufficient confirmation that the feature exists on the > > running kernel and the addition to the feature bitmap is not strictly > > necessary, but you only find this out upon attempting that lost reset. > > > > Well, we haven't used much of that bitmap space and if it isn't to be > > used when needed, why is it there? If there is a relatively simple > > alternate non-destructive way to discover the presence of a feature use > > of the bitmap isn't necessary. > > My concern isn't the absolute consumption of the bitmap, but rather > the rate of the consumption. I'm not concerned much about it. There are very few more RFE's that are either in the pipeline or something I can think of that we need.