On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 06:56 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Saturday 18 October 2008 11:23:12 Eric Paris wrote: > > type=PATH msg=audit(1224342849.465:43): item=0 name="/bin/ping" inode=49227 > > dev=fd:00 mode=0100755 ouid=0 ogid=0 rdev=00:00 > > obj=system_u:object_r:ping_exec_t:s0 cap_permitted=0000000000002000 > > cap_inheritable=0000000000000000 > > The kernel abbreviates these as: capprm & capinh in the proc file system. I'm > thinking shorter names would save some disk space. > > > This good? If either cap_permitted or cap_inheritable have anything set > > I show them both. > > And they are otherwise missing to save disk space?
Yes, see the example :) > > In the above example would you rather I only showed > > cap_permitted and dropped cap_inheritable? > > No. Its my understanding that apps could have something inheritable by > children and we'd want to know exactly what that was. Notice this record is only about the perms on the file. My question was that in the above example I have a capprm set on the file but I do not have a capinh set on the file. To save space would you rather I only showed the capprm or should I show the 0 capinh as well? The opposite would also be true, if I had capinh set on a file but didn't have capprm set should I display only the capinh or display both capinh and a blank capprm? -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
