Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:48:40 -0400 | From | Richard Guy Briggs <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V5 0/5] audit by executable name |
| |
On 14/10/21, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 06:19:52 PM Eric Paris wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 17:56 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > * Change the audit_status.version field comment in > > > include/uapi/linux/audit.h to "/* audit functionality bitmap */", or > > > similar. We can't really change the structure now, but the comment is > > > fair game. > > > > Trying to think how to do things with a #define so you can rename, > > "version" is pretty darn generic to pre-process. You could make it a > > union, so userspace code and use a sane name.... > > Yeah, I thought about suggesting the #define approach but figured that might > just be me worrying about the color of the paint ... okay, Richard, why don't > you go ahead and change the version field name and put in a #define for > compatibility.
The #define is a nice way to work around backward compatibility.
> > > 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. We just added a set/get features bitmap a year ago for things to be turned on/off and locked... How does this features bitmap fit in with that features config?
I don't disagree that a bitmap would be more useful for various distributions to pick and choose that which they choose to support over a version number that won't tell the whole story.
> paul moore
- RGB
-- Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@redhat.com> Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat Remote, Ottawa, Canada Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545
|  |