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 -- Linux-audit mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
