On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 4:11 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I think the point is being missed ... The idea is to not speculate on additional fields, as discussed we have ways to handle that, the issue was that Steve implied that he already had ideas for "things" he wanted to add. If there are "things" that need to be added, let's do that now, however if there is just speculation that maybe someday we might need to add something else we can leave that until later. -- paul-moore.com
