----- Original Message -----
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 04:07:08PM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 03:31:36PM -0400, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/audit.h b/include/uapi/linux/audit.h
> > > > index 9f096f1..a863669 100644
> > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/audit.h
> > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/audit.h
> > > > @@ -369,7 +369,8 @@ struct audit_status {
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > struct audit_tty_status {
> > > > - __u32 enabled; /* 1 = enabled, 0 = disabled */
> > > > + __u32 enabled; /* 1 = enabled, 0 = disabled */
> > > > + __u32 log_icanon; /* 1 = enabled, 0 = disabled */
> > > > };
> > >
> > > Also, would it make sense for the user-space API to be more general
> > > about expressing the intent ("log passwords")? I don't know, being
> > > precise about the exact effect of the option is also beneficial.
> >
> > Hmmm, I'll have to ponder that...
>
> I am inclined to leave it named as is for precision.
I suggested it might be better to change the name because with (icanon & !echo)
being the discriminator, "log_icanon" is no longer precise. I can't think of
an identifier that is both precise and understandable - neither
log_icanon_noecho or log_passwords are the obvious possibilities, neither makes
me enthusiastic.
Perhaps it doesn't matter that much what the audit_tty_status member is called
- that's an implementation aspect and anybody touching this needs to understand
the precise effects regardless of the name of the member. The pam_tty_audit
option name is user-visible and should be easy to understand and use. (I'm not
sure changing the topic like this is an improvement - it seems natural to use
the same name for both, and even the users may need to understand the
implications of icanon & !echo; I'm just hoping this might lead to better
suggestions.)
Mirek
--
Linux-audit mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
