linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] audit: log 32-bit socketcalls

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: <20170117035307.GA1095@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:53:07 -0500
From:   Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com,
        Steve@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] audit: log 32-bit socketcalls

On 2017-01-16 15:04, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-01-13 at 04:51 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/audit.h b/include/linux/audit.h
> >> index 9d4443f..43d8003 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/audit.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/audit.h
> >> @@ -387,6 +387,18 @@ static inline int audit_socketcall(int nargs,
> >> unsigned long *args)
> >>               return __audit_socketcall(nargs, args);
> >>       return 0;
> >>  }
> >> +static inline int audit_socketcall_compat(int nargs, u32 *args)
> >> +{
> >> +     if (unlikely(!audit_dummy_context())) {
> >
> > I've always hated these likely/unlikely. Mostly because I think they
> > are so often wrong. I believe this says that you compiled audit in but
> > you expect it to be explicitly disabled. While that is (recently) true
> > in Fedora I highly doubt that's true on the vast majority of systems
> > that have audit compiled in.
> 
> Richard and I have talked about the likely/unlikely optimization
> before and I know Richard likes to use them, but I don't for the
> reasons Eric has already mentioned.   Richard, since you're respinning
> the patch, go ahead and yank out the unlikely() call.

I don't "like to use them".  I'm simply following the use and style of
existing code and the arguments of others in places of critical
performance.  If I "fix" that one, then I would feel compelled to yank
out the one in the function immediately above, audit_socketcall() for
consistency to ease my conscience.  Eric conceded that argument.

> paul moore

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Kernel Security Engineering, Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635