Re: [PATCH 1/2] add SIGNAL syscall class
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 15:12:05 Amy Griffis wrote:
Steve Grubb wrote: [Wed Feb 14 2007, 02:04:07PM EST]
> On Wednesday 14 February 2007 13:24:31 Amy Griffis wrote:
> > Add a syscall class for sending signals.
>
> The intent of the syscall classes had been to make an update independent
> way of being able to specify audit rules for filesystem auditing where
> new syscalls could be added.
Yeah, I know I used it in a different way from the original purpose.
So, how does this work from a user perspective? Do you need to patch auditctl?
But I think this is still a valid use... When we are adding or
removing a rule, we need a way to determine if the rule specified one
of the syscalls for sending signals.
Could you show a sample use? (Just so I understand what its doing.)
Makes sense. Do you think we're in danger of running out of slots
for
syscall classes?
I think we should be fairly conservative. I hadn't quite got to the point of
saying we needed close and delete since I am still thinking about the
requirements.
Thanks,
-Steve