On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 2:43:54 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > Ultimately I guess I'll leave it upto audit subsystem what it wants to > > > have in its struct fanotify_response_info_audit_rule because for > > > fanotify subsystem, it is just an opaque blob it is passing. > > > > In that case, let's stick with leveraging the type/len fields in the > > fanotify_response_info_header struct, that should give us all the > > flexibility we need. > > > > Richard and Steve, it sounds like Steve is already aware of additional > > information that he wants to send via the > > fanotify_response_info_audit_rule struct, please include that in the > > next revision of this patchset. I don't want to get this merged and > > then soon after have to hack in additional info. > > Steve, please define the type and name of this additional field. Maybe extra_data, app_data, or extra_info. Something generic that can be reused by any application. Default to 0 if not present. Thanks, -Steve
