[redhat-lspp] I think the best option for now is

[Daniel J Walsh]

George C. Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 01:16:31PM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>   
>> import audit
>> fd=audit.audit_open()
>> print audit.audit_is_enabled(fd)
>>
>> Getting the current get_reply bindings to work is going to be very
>> difficult.
>>
>>     
>
> Yeah, it don't think it will be straightforward.  I got this hokey code
> to satisty the method call:
>
>     inreply = audit.audit_reply()
>     rc = audit.audit_get_reply(fd, inreply, audit.GET_REPLY_BLOCKING, 0)
>
> Which obviously can't work without some notion of call by reference.  From
> looking at the SWIG documentation, a C struct passed by pointer and modified
> would be passed out of the python method as an additional return value.  So,
> something like
>
>     rc, reply = audit.audit_get_reply(fd, audit.GET_REPLY_BLOCKING, 0)
>
> is more what I'd expect the method invocation to look like.
>
> Is audit.audit_is_enabled() sufficient?  It only returns whether audit is
> enabled, not necessarily alive, right?
>
>   

audit_reply is checking that the status is running.  It is doing the 
equivalent of what you were trying to do.  Steve Grubb wants to 
discourage this use of this function, so that people do not do

if (audit_reply()) {
    audit_send()
}

But would rather just
audit_send()