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

> 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.