netdev - 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: <CAHC9VhQsL7c=dAd4ZyTbEugkcrNuaxGNnaOi8oMkn=NCwuVoHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:04:23 -0500
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc:     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 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.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com