On Sunday 29 July 2007 11:02:33 Adrian Bunk wrote: > They are still completely unused, but hopefully some of the theoretical > code that might use it will appear in the kernel in the near future... > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Acked-by: Steve Grubb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I am reluctant to say that I ack this patch for a couple reasons: 1) We are talking about a basic logging facility that should be open like printk() is. 2) There are no user space GPL restrictions to use the audit netlink API, so why restrict who can send audit events via the in-kernel interfaces? It just doesn't make sense to have 2 different licenses for in-kernel vs user space audit event recording. Its the same subsystem differing only by where the event originated. 3) The API has been unrestricted for years. I don't think its a good idea to take a basic logging API away from people that have programmed to it. 4) In the absence of the in-kernel audit logging api, people will either create parallel infrastructure or resort to using printk. It will be difficult for end users to correlate security events from 2 different logs. I would support there being a mechanism for anyone who wants to reduce the number of exported symbols for their own kernels - I believe that is the basic problem here. But I think there are enough reasons to continue keeping this API open and unrestricted for anyone that wants it that way. -Steve - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/