[RFC] Testcase Scenarios for Auditfs Code

[Timothy R. Chavez]

On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 13:16 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 April 2005 11:38, Loulwa F Salem wrote:
> > Please give feedback if you can think of any scenarios that I have not
> > considered, or modifications that I need to implement.
> 
> It also might be good to try some files who's name is NAME_MAX in length. And 
> try to watch some files who's path + name is PATH_MAX in size. This is just 
> to make sure we can handle these correctly. You might also try passing 
> something bigger than these to make sure error cases are handled.

I think she has plans to do this for functional verification tests.
What she's trying to do with these is demonstrate that the auditfs code
fufills the CAPP requirement (ie: auditability is preserved given the
scenario or not preserved given the scenario).

Stephen does bring up a flaw, I believe, where an incore inode can leave
because of memory stress, and come back via the hard link, causing us to
lose auditability.  So I need to address this.

-tim

> 
> -Steve
> 
> --
> Linux-audit mailing list
> Linux-audit at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
>