repost of loginuid patches
Serge Hallyn
serue at us.ibm.com
Thu Jan 20 00:15:18 UTC 2005
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 16:25 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In audit-loginuid-proc.patch:
> General comment - weren't we going to use -1 to signify its unset? I see
> everything going through %u without special handling.
I thought we had decided not to introduce a special case, and to just
let 4294967295 signify unset.
I'm open to either behavior. Just let me know if we want -1.
> The function proc_loginuid_read:
> What if the count is too small?
I think we expect count to always be PAGE_SIZE, so really the first two
lines shouldn't even be necessary. sel_read_enforce doesn't check for
it.
> Should we return an error? Are there any
> worries about not changing count to be TMPBUFLEN if its too big?
I'm not sure what you mean. At what point?
> In audit-netlink-loginuid.patch:
> At chunk 263 & 272: auid ? was that supposed to be uid?
That was auid as in audit uid :) Maybe it should be loginuid? I do
think we want to distinguish between it and the current uid.
> That's all I see...
Thanks for the comments,
-serge
--
Serge Hallyn <serue at us.ibm.com>
More information about the Linux-audit
mailing list