linux-kernel - Re: [kernel-hardening] 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: <1333999988.14260.9.camel@localhost>
Date:	Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:33:08 -0400
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To:	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.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: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v17 09/15] seccomp: remove
 duplicated failure logging

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.

-Eric

--
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/