On 2018-06-01 15:37, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Friday, June 1, 2018 3:12:15 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On 2018-06-01 15:03, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > On Friday, June 1, 2018 1:58:34 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > On 2018-06-01 12:55, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, May 31, 2018 6:21:20 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > > > On 2018-05-31 17:29, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > > > > > On Thursday, May 31, 2018 4:23:09 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs > wrote: > > > > > > > > The AUDIT_FILTER_TYPE name is vague and misleading due to not > > > > > > > > describing > > > > > > > > where or when the filter is applied and obsolete due to its > > > > > > > > available > > > > > > > > filter fields having been expanded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Userspace has already renamed it from AUDIT_FILTER_TYPE to > > > > > > > > AUDIT_FILTER_EXCLUDE without checking if it already exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Historically speaking, this is not why it is the way it is. But I > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > doesn't mean that you cannot do something like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define AUDIT_FILTER_EXCLUDE AUDIT_FILTER_TYPE > > > > > > > > > > > > I was originally hoping to do that, but that then causes a build > > > > > > error > > > > > > on any previous version of audit userspace. > > > > > > > > > > I cannot reproduce this. What error did you get? What version of gcc? > > > > > > > > I didn't even try to compile it since I'd predicted that there would be > > > > a symbol definition conflict. > > > > > > > > How did you not get a conflict with that definition also in the kernel > > > > header? > > > > > > It's an identical definition. That's OK. Changes to a definition is last > > > one wins - but you get a warning not an error. > > > > Do any distros compile with -Werror? > > Audit itself can't be compiled with -Werror as there are lots of warnings > about using string functions with unsigned chars. However, libaudit.h is used > in 20 or so packages and there is a chance one may have -Werror. But I think > its unlikely based on a recent project which involved looking over static > analysis results for a large chunk of the Fedora 27 repo. Out of 4730 source > packages, 84 had no compiler warnings. So, I'd say its next to impossible for > any distribution to make -Werror a blanket policy.
Ok, I'll switch my patch to match your definition. Is there any plan to migrate the documentation to match? > -Steve - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com> Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada IRC: rgb, SunRaycer Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635 -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
