[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqD9hZVZQXA5cyufwWirWVUYZwSkjRxHR2CBKW5V62qD-DGtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:26:01 -0500
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
arnd@...db.de, davem@...emloft.net, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net,
mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu,
serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com,
indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com, corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jmorris@...ei.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 09/15] seccomp: remove duplicated failure logging
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:01:54 -0500
> Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote:
>
>> From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>
>> This consolidates the seccomp filter error logging path and adds more
>> details to the audit log.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/include/linux/audit.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/audit.h
>>
>> ...
>>
>> #define audit_inode(n,d) do { (void)(d); } while (0)
>> #define audit_inode_child(i,p) do { ; } while (0)
>> #define audit_core_dumps(i) do { ; } while (0)
>> -#define audit_seccomp(i) do { ; } while (0)
>> +#define audit_seccomp(i,s,c) do { ; } while (0)
>
> Sigh. Someone please convert all these to C. That way we get
> typechecking and don't need dopey party tricks like that "(void)(d)" to
> squish compilation warnings.
>
>> ...
>> --- a/kernel/auditsc.c
>> +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c
>> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@
>> #include <linux/syscalls.h>
>> #include <linux/capability.h>
>> #include <linux/fs_struct.h>
>> +#include <linux/compat.h>
>>
>> #include "audit.h"
>>
>> @@ -2710,13 +2711,18 @@ void audit_core_dumps(long signr)
>> audit_log_end(ab);
>> }
>>
>> -void __audit_seccomp(unsigned long syscall)
>> +void __audit_seccomp(unsigned long syscall, long signr, int code)
>> {
>> struct audit_buffer *ab;
>>
>> ab = audit_log_start(NULL, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_ANOM_ABEND);
>> - audit_log_abend(ab, "seccomp", SIGKILL);
>> + audit_log_abend(ab, "seccomp", signr);
>> audit_log_format(ab, " syscall=%ld", syscall);
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>> + audit_log_format(ab, " compat=%d", is_compat_task());
>> +#endif
>
> We don't need the ifdef for compilation reasons now.
>
> The question is: should we emit the compat= record on
> non-compat-capable architectures? Doing so would be safer - making it
> conditional invites people to write x86-only usersapce.
I'd certainly prefer it always being there for exactly that reason.
Kees, Eric, any preferences? Unless I hear one, I'll just drop the
ifdefs in the next revision.
thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
