[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLSE72eX+rxnfyXdp=VvUi+gqy1apT9QcdA4ADM-H0awA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 12:32:05 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
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 Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> -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.
Yeah, I'd prefer the ifdefs dropped too.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
ChromeOS Security
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.
