Re: [PATCH V5 0/5] audit by executable name

On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 17:54 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > On 14/10/29, Steve Grubb wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 03:48:40 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > On 14/10/21, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > Can anyone think of anything else that might be affected by this? > > > > > > > > > > No one uses this stuff, just change it. > > > > > > > > Yes, but I feel like I need to at least ask the question; how much > > > > attention I pay to the answers is something else ... > > > > > > I'm still skeptical this won't blow up... Like the capabilities bitmap > > > did. I suspect there isn't agreement on what constitutes a feature. > > > > Anything major that user space would have to know about to determine if its > > supported. If you don't know, just ask if we need to add a bit to the bitmap. > > Some examples, adding the object comparison engine, adding the loginuid- > > immutable feature, if we added filtering on TTY that would also qualify (not > > asking for that). Otherwise, user space get EINVAL on the netlink operation > > which is not useful in explaining why the command was rejected. > > Well, I guess this falls under Linus' "thou shalt not break userspace", > but it would certainly be tempting to change some of those to > EOPNOTSUPP. You only break userspace if something breaks :)