--- Stephen Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 09:33 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > --- Casey Schaufler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > diff -uprN -X linux-2.6.22-base/Documentation/dontdiff > > > > > linux-2.6.22-base/include/linux/security.h > > > > > linux-2.6.22-audit/include/linux/security.h > > > > > --- linux-2.6.22-base/include/linux/security.h 2007-07-08 > > > > 16:32:17.000000000 > > > > > -0700 > > > > > +++ linux-2.6.22-audit/include/linux/security.h 2007-08-01 > > > > 20:14:18.000000000 > > > > > -0700 > > > > > @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ > > > > > #include <net/flow.h> > > > > > > > > > > struct ctl_table; > > > > > +struct audit_krule; > > > > > +struct selinux_audit_rule; > > > > > > > > selinux_audit_rule in LSM interface? > > > > > > The structure needs a new name. Any objections to audit_rule_lsm? > > > I'd suggest security_audit_rule, but that doesn't say anything about > > > where to look to see how it gets used. > > > > Actually, it's worse than that because an selinux_audit_rule really > > is SELinux specific. Any problem with making the security_audit_rule > > interfaces use a void * ? The audit code appears to be accomodating. > > The struct is already opaque outside of the security module, so you can > just rename it and implement your own version of the struct in your > module.
Oh so true in the module. The LSM interfaces (security_audit_rule_xxx) themselves don't care what it is and it will differ between modules, so a void * seems correct there. Casey Schaufler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Linux-audit mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
