linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 (was V6)] audit: use macros for unset inode and device values

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: <1963661.TAhBJMcsjy@sifl>
Date:	Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:16:58 -0400
From:	Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
To:	Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-audit@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	sgrubb@...hat.com, eparis@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 (was V6)] audit: use macros for unset inode and device values

On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 02:30:14 AM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 15/08/04, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 01, 2015 03:42:23 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  include/uapi/linux/audit.h |    2 ++
> > >  kernel/audit.c             |    2 +-
> > >  kernel/audit_watch.c       |    8 ++++----
> > >  kernel/auditsc.c           |    6 +++---
> > >  4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Yipee, less magic numbers!
> > 
> > However, one question for you ... are we ever going to see a device or
> > inode set to -1 in the userspace facing API?  In other words, should the
> > new #defines go in the uapi headers or simply in kernel/audit.h?  Unless
> > it is part of the API, let's leave it out of uapi as we have to be very
> > careful about that stuff and I'd prefer to keep it minimal.
> 
> This is a good point.  I did briefly thing about this at one point.
> Perhaps Steve can answer this.  It would be trivial to move it back to
> uapi if needed.  Would you be ok with it in include/linux/audit.h for
> now?

I have no problem with it in include/linux/audit.h, that is a kernel-only 
include that we can change at anytime.  My concern is putting it into a uapi 
header which makes it very hard to change.

I'm thinking we should just go ahead and put it in include/linux/audit.h for 
now as I can't think of a reason why userspace should be passing in an invalid 
dev/inode value, it just doesn't make sense.  If the invalid tokens prove to 
be valuable for userspace, we can always move the #defines.

-- 
paul moore
security @ redhat

--
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/