lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 19 Jul 2020 07:02:06 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <>
To:     Tyler Hicks <>,
        Nayna <>
Cc:     Dmitry Kasatkin <>,
        James Morris <>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <>,
        Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <>,
        Prakhar Srivastava <>,,,,
        Janne Karhunen <>,
        Casey Schaufler <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] ima: Have the LSM free its audit rule

On Fri, 2020-07-17 at 14:24 -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 2020-07-17 15:20:22, Nayna wrote:
> > 
> > On 7/9/20 2:19 AM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> > > Ask the LSM to free its audit rule rather than directly calling kfree().
> > 
> > Is it to be called audit rule or filter rule ?  Likewise in subject line.
> gt
> The security hooks call this "audit rule" but Mimi explained the
> reasoning for IMA referring to this as an "audit filter" here:
> I would be fine with her renaming/rewording this patch, accordingly, in
> next-integrity-testing.

Both here and "ima: AppArmor satisfies the audit rule requirements",
the subject is AppArmor/LSM, which do refer to the rules as "audit"
rules.  In the "ima: Rename internal audit rule functions" case, the
rule rename is internal to IMA.  Here it makes sense to replace
"audit" with "filter".  Tyler, I've gone ahead and made the change.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists