netdev - Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v17 09/15] seccomp: remove duplicated failure logging

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKdxiDD40TfhgMk_dAAL9ApX+JfrfKDgRhfRCCWvpiTpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 9 Apr 2012 12:39:46 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc:	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	arnd@...db.de, davem@...emloft.net, hpa@...or.com,
	mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	luto@....edu, serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org,
	scarybeasts@...il.com, indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com,
	corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org,
	coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jmorris@...ei.org
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v17 09/15] seccomp: remove
 duplicated failure logging

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 14:26 -0500, Will Drewry wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:01:54 -0500
>> > Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote:
>
>> >> -void __audit_seccomp(unsigned long syscall)
>> >> +void __audit_seccomp(unsigned long syscall, long signr, int code)
>> >>  {
>> >>       struct audit_buffer *ab;
>> >>
>> >>       ab = audit_log_start(NULL, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_ANOM_ABEND);
>> >> -     audit_log_abend(ab, "seccomp", SIGKILL);
>> >> +     audit_log_abend(ab, "seccomp", signr);
>> >>       audit_log_format(ab, " syscall=%ld", syscall);
>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>> >> +     audit_log_format(ab, " compat=%d", is_compat_task());
>> >> +#endif
>> >
>> > We don't need the ifdef for compilation reasons now.
>> >
>> > The question is: should we emit the compat= record on
>> > non-compat-capable architectures?  Doing so would be safer - making it
>> > conditional invites people to write x86-only usersapce.
>>
>> I'd certainly prefer it always being there for exactly that reason.
>>
>> Kees, Eric, any preferences?  Unless I hear one, I'll just drop the
>> ifdefs in the next revision.
>
> I'd just leave it in unconditionally.  The audit parse libraries would
> handle it just fine, but that doesn't mean everyone uses that tool to
> parse the text.

Related to this, can we get this patch into a tree as well?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/23/332

Thanks,

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
ChromeOS Security
--
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