On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:12 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:52:36 AM EST Paul Moore wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:47 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 8:19:44 AM EST Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > > The established pattern is that we print -1 when its unset and "?" > > > > > when > > > > > its totalling missing. So, how could this be invalid? It should be > > > > > set > > > > > or not. That is unless its totally missing just like when we do not > > > > > run > > > > > with selinux enabled and a context just doesn't exist. > > > > > > > > Ok, so in this case it is clearly unset, so should be -1, which will be > > > > a > > > > 20-digit number when represented as an unsigned long long int. > > > > > > > > Thank you for that clarification Steve. > > > > > > It is literally a -1. ( 2 characters) > > > > Well, not as Richard has currently written the code, it is a "%llu". > > This was why I asked the question I did; if we want the "-1" here we > > probably want to special case that as I don't think we want to display > > audit container IDs as signed numbers in general. > > OK, then go with the long number, we'll fix it in the interpretation. I guess > we do the same thing for auid. As I said above, I'm okay with a special case handling for unset/"-1" in this case. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
