[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKdxiDD40TfhgMk_dAAL9ApX+JfrfKDgRhfRCCWvpiTpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 12:39:46 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 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: Re: [PATCH v17 09/15] seccomp: remove
duplicated failure logging
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 14:26 -0500, Will Drewry 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:
>
>> >> -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.
>
> I'd just leave it in unconditionally. The audit parse libraries would
> handle it just fine, but that doesn't mean everyone uses that tool to
> parse the text.
Related to this, can we get this patch into a tree as well?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/23/332
Thanks,
-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.
