linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] audit: replace magic audit syscall class numbers with macros

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]

Date:   Tue, 11 May 2021 13:51:48 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
        Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] audit: replace magic audit syscall class numbers
 with macros

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:14 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 2021-05-10 21:23, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 4:36 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Replace audit syscall class magic numbers with macros.
> > >
> > > This required putting the macros into new header file
> > > include/linux/auditscm.h since the syscall macros were included for both 64
> > > bit and 32 bit in any compat code, causing redefinition warnings.
> >
> > The ifndef/define didn't protect against redeclaration?  Huh.  Maybe
> > I'm not thinking about this correctly, or the arch specific code is
> > doing something wonky ...
> >
> > Regardless, assuming that it is necessary, I would prefer if we called
> > it auditsc.h instead of auditscm.h; the latter makes me think of
> > sockets and not syscalls.
>
> The "m" was for "macros", since there are auditsc bits in audit.h as
> well, but I have no significant objection.

Yes, I figured as much, but my comment about it looking like a socket
"thing" still stands.  I'm open to other ideas if you don't like
auditsc.h, I just don't like auditscm.h.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com