key in syscall audit rules.

[Timothy R. Chavez]

On Wednesday 18 May 2005 11:01, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 10:28 -0500, Timothy R. Chavez wrote:
> > Well "9" (or rather a 32b/64b hash) could map to something in a userland
> > table of sorts which would produce "attempted-shadow-write" before it got
> > to the log.  There's most definitely a space savings here and we
> > shouldn't be so free to use kernel memory as we do user memory, but is it
> > really worth all the extra complexity to try to decipher the meaning of
> > "9" in userland? IMHO, no. *shrug*
>
> Agreed. Can you change the auditfs patch to use numeric keys in the next
> incarnation, please? This kind of thing really doesn't live in the
> kernel.

I think we should hold off for the time being and put it as a "TODO" as it 
will require work in both the kernel and the userland package to convert over 
and change the offsets and what not.  Something I can do later this 
week/weekend perhaps.  Is that OK?  I just want to get out an update that 
fixes (once I figure it out) the problem with some watch records not 
appearing and the alterations needed to list watches without sleeping between 
the rcu_read locks first.  This is most needed by the testers here.

-tim