On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:03:19AM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > There isn't a mechanism to allow these to slip through. Over the years I have > come to realize that the audit system can be a great resource for debugging > user space. It was sitting through one of Dave Jones' why userspace sucks > lectures and afterwards pouring through audit logs that I saw that we can find > some of these problems. If part of the goals when writing software is > correctness and efficiency, then wouldn't failing syscalls be of interest? Not > just in the case of EPERM, but also for example EINVAL? Because this is the expected behaviour in certain cases? I'm not disputing the usefulness of generating these reports, but there are cases where it's entirely legitimate to receive an EPERM and do something useful with that. The audit system needs to recognise that and provide a mechanism for packages to flag that such accesses are genuine and uninteresting. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
