On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 2:43:54 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > Ultimately I guess I'll leave it upto audit subsystem
what it wants to
> > have in its struct fanotify_response_info_audit_rule because for
> > fanotify subsystem, it is just an opaque blob it is passing.
>
> In that case, let's stick with leveraging the type/len fields in the
> fanotify_response_info_header struct, that should give us all the
> flexibility we need.
>
> Richard and Steve, it sounds like Steve is already aware of additional
> information that he wants to send via the
> fanotify_response_info_audit_rule struct, please include that in the
> next revision of this patchset. I don't want to get this merged and
> then soon after have to hack in additional info.
Steve, please define the type and name of this additional field.
Maybe extra_data, app_data, or extra_info. Something generic that can be
reused by any application. Default to 0 if not present.
Thanks,
-Steve