linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v17 09/15] seccomp: remove duplicated failure logging

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<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!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/