linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH ghak90 V8 13/16] audit: track container nesting

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: <35934535.C1y6eIYgqz@x2>
Date:   Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:12:02 -0500
From:   Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>,
        containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        omosnace@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com, simo@...hat.com,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        nhorman@...driver.com, Dan Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>,
        mpatel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V8 13/16] audit: track container nesting

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:52:36 AM EST Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:47 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 8:19:44 AM EST Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > The established pattern is that we print -1 when its unset and "?"
> > > > when
> > > > its totalling missing. So, how could this be invalid? It should be
> > > > set
> > > > or not. That is unless its totally missing just like when we do not
> > > > run
> > > > with selinux enabled and a context just doesn't exist.
> > > 
> > > Ok, so in this case it is clearly unset, so should be -1, which will be
> > > a
> > > 20-digit number when represented as an unsigned long long int.
> > > 
> > > Thank you for that clarification Steve.
> > 
> > It is literally a  -1.  ( 2 characters)
> 
> Well, not as Richard has currently written the code, it is a "%llu".
> This was why I asked the question I did; if we want the "-1" here we
> probably want to special case that as I don't think we want to display
> audit container IDs as signed numbers in general.

OK, then go with the long number, we'll fix it in the interpretation. I guess 
we do the same thing for auid.

-Steve