Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Apr 2012 12:39:46 -0700 | Subject | Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v17 09/15] seccomp: remove duplicated failure logging | From | Kees Cook <> |
| |
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.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@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:01:54 -0500 >> > Will Drewry <wad@chromium.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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |