[Samba] vfs_full_audit and facility 'auth'...

[Timur I. Bakeyev]

On 11 May 2018 at 18:21, Rowland Penny via samba-technical <
samba-technical at lists.samba.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 May 2018 17:56:44 +0200
> "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur at com.bat.ru> wrote:
>
> > On 11 May 2018 at 17:00, Rowland Penny via samba-technical <
> > samba-technical at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 11 May 2018 16:46:55 +0200
> > > "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > >         static const struct enum_list enum_log_facilities[] = {
> > > >                 { LOG_USER, "USER" },
> > > >                 { LOG_LOCAL0, "LOCAL0" },
> > > >                 { LOG_LOCAL1, "LOCAL1" },
> > > >                 { LOG_LOCAL2, "LOCAL2" },
> > > >                 { LOG_LOCAL3, "LOCAL3" },
> > > >                 { LOG_LOCAL4, "LOCAL4" },
> > > >                 { LOG_LOCAL5, "LOCAL5" },
> > > >                 { LOG_LOCAL6, "LOCAL6" },
> > > >                 { LOG_LOCAL7, "LOCAL7" },
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > Clearly, the only possible facilities are LOCAL* and USER. That
> > > > raises the question why it's not mentioned in the man page and
> > > > why is this limitation in place?
> > >
> > > Good questions and I don't know the answers to them, the other
> > > question is, why does the man page say you can use any syslog
> > > facility when obviously you cannot ?
> > >
> > >
> > Everyone lies! (c) Seems it's a day of quotes for me :)
> >
> > something has to be fixed here - either man page or the code. I don't
> > see much of the reason to limit facilities to those low-end, general
> > purpose ones. AUTH, actually, makes sense for audit logs.
> >
> > Question to developers.
>
> Well, I can prepare a patch to fix the man page, but would it be better
> to fix the code to do what the man page says it can do now ?
>
>
Fixing it in both ways is easy, but it would be nice to hear from the
developers, why did they choose such a limited set of syslog facilities.

Timur.