Messages in this thread | | | From | Paul Moore <> | Date | Fri, 20 Apr 2018 15:04:30 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH ghak80 V1] audit: add syscall information to FEATURE_CHANGE records |
| |
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote: > On 2018-04-20 11:58, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On 2018-04-17 18:06, Paul Moore wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> > Tie syscall information to FEATURE_CHANGE calls since it is a result of >> >> > user action. >> >> > >> >> > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/80 >> >> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> >> >> > --- >> >> > kernel/audit.c | 5 ++--- >> >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> > >> >> > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c >> >> > index 8da24ef..23f125b 100644 >> >> > --- a/kernel/audit.c >> >> > +++ b/kernel/audit.c >> >> > @@ -1103,10 +1103,9 @@ static void audit_log_feature_change(int which, u32 old_feature, u32 new_feature >> >> > { >> >> > struct audit_buffer *ab; >> >> > >> >> > - if (audit_enabled == AUDIT_OFF) >> >> > + if (!audit_enabled) >> >> >> >> Sooo, this is an unrelated style change, why? Looking at the rest of >> >> kernel/audit.c we seem to use a mix of "(!x)" and "(x == 0/CONST)" so >> >> why are you adding noise to this patch? >> > >> > Ok, survey sez 25 instances of audit_enabled used as a boolean vs 7 >> > instances where it could be used as a boolean where the expression is >> > made harder to read (in my opinion). I thought it was worth changing to >> > read the same way most of the other instances I've been reviewing are >> > written. There are only two where the non-boolean distiction with >> > AUDIT_LOCKED is required. >> >> Thanks for the explanation. >> >> While I still believe this patch, and connecting records in general, >> is the Right Thing To Do, I'm expecting there to be some hate mail on >> this issue and I would like to keep the patch as small and as >> straight-to-the-point as possible just so there is little confusion >> about what is changing. >> >> Please respin this without the style change and I'll merge it as soon >> as I see it. Alternatively, give me the "ok" and I'll merge the patch >> now and just drop the style change; after all we're talking about one >> line in a five line patch ;) > > Go ahead and drop that style change line to simplify this patch and I'll > submit another patch to clean them all up at the same time (probably the > next time one of those changes).
Sounds good.
Merged. Thanks Richard.
-- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
| |