Laurent,
I think audit.rules should revert back to being installed
to /etc/audit/audit.rules.
This way we maintain Steve's intent, that the use of augenrules
and /etc/audit/rules.d is the result of a conscious decision by an
administrator. IE no inadvertent overwriting of /etc/audit/audit.rules
during an upgrade.
Regards
Burn Alting
On Sun, 2013-05-05 at 11:43 +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Le Wed, 01 May 2013 10:29:07 -0400,
Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com> a écrit :
> Hi,
Hello,
[...]
>
> Several people have asked for a way to deposit rules into a directory
> so that based on what is installed, rules can also be added. This
> makes it easier to have a core system that gets packages, config, and
> files added to make it a different kind of server or desktop. My
> guess is that it will be mostly used to add watches on setuid apps
> which can differ from machine type to machine type.
>
> The place where these rules are stored is /etc/audit/rules.d.
> Compiling rules from that directory will result in a new file being
> written to /etc/audit/audit.rules. That means it can overwrite
> existing rules. Since we don't want that to happen by accident,
> augenrules is disabled by default.
[...]
The make install rule is now installing audit.rules in
the /etc/audit/rules.d directory.
What would happen on fresh installation if augenrules call is disabled
and that /etc/audit/audit.rules is not existing?
Will /etc/audit/rules.d/audit.rules be called as a fallback? Or should
distributions take care of shipping both /etc/audit/audit.rules
and /etc/audit/rules.d/audit.rules?
What do you think?
Cheers
Laurent Bigonville
--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit