On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 10:30:16AM -0600, Timothy R. Chavez wrote:
On Thursday 03 November 2005 08:39, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Thursday 03 November 2005 08:58, Amy Griffis wrote:
> > What about someone running a kernel without CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL? ?With
> > this implementation, they wouldn't be able to use this filtering at
> > all. ?That doesn't make any sense, since filtering audit record types
> > is inherently unrelated to syscalls. ?This filtering applies to audit
> > in general, so it should live entirely in audit.c. ?
>
> It might be tricky to untangle. I think it uses functions that only live in
> that file. I think its worth looking into, though.
>
> -Steve
>
This shortcoming also appears with user message filtering. Right?
Yes, and that doesn't make sense either. :-)