On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 08:59:50 AM Daniel J Walsh wrote: > How about permitted rather then allowed. I think permitted is already in an AVC. > On 04/29/2014 10:59 PM, Eric Paris wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 16:54 -0700, Stephen Smalley wrote: > >> Requested for Android in order to distinguish denials that are not in > >> fact breaking anything yet due to permissive domains versus denials > >> that are being enforced, but seems generally useful. result field was > >> already in the selinux audit data structure and was being passed to > >> avc_audit() but wasn't being used. Seems to cause no harm to ausearch > >> or audit2allow to add it as a field. Comments? > > > > I think it's a great idea, but I'm worried that Steve is going to get > > grumpy because an AVC record is going to have a result= field which is > > similar, but not necessarily related to the res= field of a SYSCALL > > record. I think that I'll have to parse this field no matter what. Its probably that important. In the syscall, we use success= to be the final determination. > > Seems easily confused (although probably 9999 times out of > > 10000 they will be the same) Why would this ever not be correct? Are there times when we get an AVC with a denial _and_ the syscall completes successfully? I'd suggest using res= since its in the audit dictionary and means exactly what you are wanting to use it for. In it, 1 is success, 0 is failure. > > So while I wholeheartedly think we should take the idea, I wonder if > > someone can dream up a name that isn't confusingly similar... > > > > I can't think of anything... There is thesaurus.com. :-) consequence, outcome, effect, reaction, conclusion, verdict, decision, judgement, finding, ruling, answer, solution, recommendation, order, ... -Steve _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
