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: <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
--
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/