netdev - Re: [PATCH] XFRM: assorted IPsec fixups

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: <200712071545.45411.paul.moore@hp.com>
Date:	Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:45:41 -0500
From:	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com,
	selinux@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [PATCH] XFRM: assorted IPsec fixups

On Friday 07 December 2007 3:36:08 pm Eric Paris wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 12:11 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > This patch fixes a number of small but potentially troublesome things in
> > the XFRM/IPsec code:
> >
> >  * Use the 'audit_enabled' variable already in include/linux/audit.h
> >    Removed the need for extern declarations local to each XFRM audit
> > fuction

{snip}

> although it does make me wonder why audit_log_start doesn't just check
> audit_enabled itself....

/me shrugs ... I have no idea, I've just always followed the lead of what was 
already written, but now that you mention it - it doesn't make much sense.  I 
suppose at some point we can go through and change all the 'audit_enabled' 
users, but I wonder if there is some point (?performance?) to having the 
callers check?

-- 
paul moore
linux security @ hp
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html