PATH records show fcaps

[Eric Paris]

On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Eric Paris (eparis at redhat.com):
> > type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1224342849.465:43): arch=c000003e syscall=59 success=yes exit=0 a0=25b6a00 a1=2580410 a2=2580140 a3=8 items=2 ppid=2219 pid=2266 auid=0 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0 fsgid=0 tty=pts0 ses=1 comm="ping" exe="/bin/ping" subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null)
> > type=EXECVE msg=audit(1224342849.465:43): argc=2 a0="ping" a1="127.0.0.1" 
> > type=CWD msg=audit(1224342849.465:43):  cwd="/root"
> > type=PATH msg=audit(1224342849.465:43): item=0 name="/bin/ping" inode=49227 dev=fd:00 mode=0100755 ouid=0 ogid=0 rdev=00:00 obj=system_u:object_r:ping_exec_t:s0 cap_permitted=0000000000002000 cap_inheritable=0000000000000000
> > type=PATH msg=audit(1224342849.465:43): item=1 name=(null) inode=507963 dev=fd:00 mode=0100755 ouid=0 ogid=0 rdev=00:00 obj=system_u:object_r:ld_so_t:s0
> > 
> > This good?  If either cap_permitted or cap_inheritable have anything set
> > I show them both.  In the above example would you rather I only showed
> > cap_permitted and dropped cap_inheritable?  Did I see correctly that
> 
> I think dropping the empty one is fine.
> 
> Steve's suggestion of cap_prm and cap_inh are good for being shorter and
> matching proc output.  But OTOH it's a bit confusing as at first I
> thought these were the task's values.  Would it be too terse to just
> use fP and fI?

yes, too terse. How about cap_fP, cap_fI, cap_fVer, cap_fEffBit ?

Based on your other comments I'm going to go add fVer and fEffBit.