On Thursday, September 8, 2022 10:41:44 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > I'm trying to abide by what was suggested by the fs-devel folks. I can
> > live with it. But if you want to make something non-generic for all
> > users of fanotify, call the new field "trusted". This would decern when
> > a decision was made because the file was untrusted or access denied for
> > another reason.
>
> So, "u32 trusted;" ? How would you like that formatted?
> "fan_trust={0|1}"
So how does this play out if there is another user? Do they want a num= and
trust= if not, then the AUDIT_FANOTIFY record will have multiple formats
which is not good. I'd rather suggest something generic that can be
interpreted based on who's attached to fanotify. IOW we have a fan_type=0 and
then followed by info0= info1= the interpretation of those solely depend on
fan_type. If the fan_type does not need both, then any interpretation skips
what it doesn't need. If fan_type=1, then it follows what arg0= and arg1= is
for that format. But make this pivot on fan_type and not actual names.
> > > You mention that you know what you want to put in the struct, why not
> > > share the details with all of us so we are all on the same page and
> > > can have a proper discussion.
> >
> > Because I want to abide by the original agreement and not impose
> > opinionated requirements that serve no one else. I'd rather have
> > something anyone can use. I want to play nice.
>
> If someone else wants to use something, why not give them a type of
> their own other than FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_AUDIT_RULE that they can shape
> however they like?
Please, let's keep AUDIT_FANOTIFY normalized but pivot on fan_type.
-Steve
