On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2017-01-17 08:55, Steve Grubb wrote: >> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 12:25:51 AM EST Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
... >> > Ones that are not so straightforward: >> > - "secmark" depends on a kernel config setting, so should it always be >> > present but "(none)" if that kernel feature is compiled out? >> >> If this is selinux related, I'd treat it the same way that we do subj >> everywhere else. > > Ok. To be clear, a packet's secmark should be recorded via a dedicated field, e.g. "secmark", and not use the "subj" field (it isn't a subject label in the traditional sense). -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
