[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: repost of loginuid patches



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 us ibm com>


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]