linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 0/5] audit by executable name

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20141029194840.GL20866@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
Date:	Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:48:40 -0400
From:	Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
To:	Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
Cc:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>,
	linux-audit@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	aviro@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/5] audit by executable name

On 14/10/21, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 06:19:52 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 17:56 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > * Change the audit_status.version field comment in
> > > include/uapi/linux/audit.h to "/* audit functionality bitmap */", or
> > > similar.  We can't really change the structure now, but the comment is
> > > fair game.
> > 
> > Trying to think how to do things with a #define so you can rename,
> > "version" is pretty darn generic to pre-process.  You could make it a
> > union, so userspace code and use a sane name....
> 
> Yeah, I thought about suggesting the #define approach but figured that might 
> just be me worrying about the color of the paint ... okay, Richard, why don't 
> you go ahead and change the version field name and put in a #define for 
> compatibility.

The #define is a nice way to work around backward compatibility.

> > > Can anyone think of anything else that might be affected by this?
> > 
> > No one uses this stuff, just change it.
> 
> Yes, but I feel like I need to at least ask the question; how much attention I 
> pay to the answers is something else ...

I'm still skeptical this won't blow up...  Like the capabilities bitmap
did.  I suspect there isn't agreement on what constitutes a feature.  We
just added a set/get features bitmap a year ago for things to be turned
on/off and locked...  How does this features bitmap fit in with that
features config?

I don't disagree that a bitmap would be more useful for various
distributions to pick and choose that which they choose to support over
a version number that won't tell the whole story.

> paul moore

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@...hat.com>
Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545
--
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/