Keith M Wesolowski writes: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:41:41PM -0800, Gary Winiger wrote: > > > 2.1. The read_authorization property > > > > > Another thing I didn't note is that this a new audit event > > and record is likely to be required as this is making an > > access control decision. See > > http://opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/policies/audit-policy/ > > Yes. However, since none of the existing such decisions in configd > are generating audit events, I'd prefer that audit records be > introduced for reads at the same time they're introduced for > modifications. > > I've heard that the SMF team has some plans for this, but I don't know > the state of those plans. If this is likely to be addressed in the > next week or two, I'd appreciate a pointer to the changes so that I > can incorporate them for my work as well. Can anyone familiar with > that work comment? > > -- > Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" > FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!" > _______________________________________________ > smf-discuss mailing list > smf-discuss at opensolaris.org
Yes, I'd be happy to comment. I've written the code to generate SMF audit events, but I have not yet been able to put it back into the onnv gate. It looks as if it is going to be several more weeks, before I will be able to do my putback. In essence the code is sort of in limbo right now. I guess that you and I are in a race to see who can putback first. If you putback first, I'll add event generation for read_authorization actions to my code. If I putback first, I'd be happy to help you with code to generate the event. I'll send you a webrev of my changes, and perhaps you can send me a webrev of your changes. That way we can see where we will be impacting each other. tom
