On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:19:55PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 2:24 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Paul, > > would following output be ok: > > > > type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1574445211.897:28015): arch=c000003e syscall=321 success=no exit=-13 a0=5 a1=7fff09ac6c60 a2=78 a3=6 items=0 ppid=1408 pid=9266 auid=1001 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0 fsgid=0 tty=pts0 ses=1 comm="test_verifier" exe="/home/jolsa/linux/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier" subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null)ARCH=x86_64 SYSCALL=bpf AUID="jolsa" UID="root" GID="root" EUID="root" SUID="root" FSUID="root" EGID="root" SGID="root" FSGID="root" > > type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(1574445211.897:28015): proctitle="./test_verifier" > > type=BPF msg=audit(1574445211.897:28016): prog-id=8103 event=LOAD > > > > type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1574445211.897:28016): arch=c000003e syscall=321 success=yes exit=14 a0=5 a1=7fff09ac6b80 a2=78 a3=0 items=0 ppid=1408 pid=9266 auid=1001 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0 fsgid=0 tty=pts0 ses=1 comm="test_verifier" exe="/home/jolsa/linux/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier" subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null)ARCH=x86_64 SYSCALL=bpf AUID="jolsa" UID="root" GID="root" EUID="root" SUID="root" FSUID="root" EGID="root" SGID="root" FSGID="root" > > type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(1574445211.897:28016): proctitle="./test_verifier" > > type=BPF msg=audit(1574445211.897:28017): prog-id=8103 event=UNLOAD > > There is some precedence in using "op=" instead of "event=" (an audit > "event" is already a thing, using "event=" here might get confusing). > I suppose if we are getting really nit-picky you might want to > lower-case the LOAD/UNLOAD, but generally Steve cares more about these > things than I do. > > For reference, we have a searchable database of fields here: > * https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-documentation/blob/master/specs/fields/field-dictionary.csv I'm fine with "op", Daniel, Alexei? > > > I assume for audit-userspace and audit-testsuite the change will > > go in as github PR, right? I have the auditd change ready and will > > add test shortly. > > You can submit the audit-testsuite either as a GH PR or as a > patch(set) to the linux-audit mailing list, both work equally well. I > believe has the same policy for his userspace tools, but I'll let him > speak for himself. ok > > > diff --git a/include/linux/audit.h b/include/linux/audit.h > > index 18925d924c73..c69d2776d197 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/audit.h > > +++ b/include/linux/audit.h > > @@ -358,8 +358,6 @@ static inline void audit_ptrace(struct task_struct *t) > > __audit_ptrace(t); > > } > > > > -extern void audit_log_task(struct audit_buffer *ab); > > - > > /* Private API (for audit.c only) */ > > extern void __audit_ipc_obj(struct kern_ipc_perm *ipcp); > > extern void __audit_ipc_set_perm(unsigned long qbytes, uid_t uid, gid_t gid, umode_t mode); > > @@ -648,8 +646,6 @@ static inline void audit_ntp_log(const struct audit_ntp_data *ad) > > static inline void audit_ptrace(struct task_struct *t) > > { } > > > > -static inline void audit_log_task(struct audit_buffer *ab) > > -{ } > > #define audit_n_rules 0 > > #define audit_signals 0 > > #endif /* CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL */ > > diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c > > index 9bf1045fedfa..4effe01ebbe2 100644 > > --- a/kernel/auditsc.c > > +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c > > @@ -2545,7 +2545,7 @@ void __audit_ntp_log(const struct audit_ntp_data *ad) > > audit_log_ntp_val(ad, "adjust", AUDIT_NTP_ADJUST); > > } > > > > -void audit_log_task(struct audit_buffer *ab) > > +static void audit_log_task(struct audit_buffer *ab) > > I'm slightly concerned that this is based on top of your other patch > which was NACK'ed. I might not have been clear before, but with the > merge window set to open in a few days, and this change affecting the > kernel interface (uapi, etc.) and lacking a test, this isn't something > that I see as a candidate for the upcoming merge window. *Please* > revert your original patch first; if you think I'm cranky now I can > promise I'll be a lot more cranky if I see the original patch in -rc1 > ;) no worries, I'm used to cranky ;-) Alexei already asked Dave to revert this in previous email, so that should happen thanks, jirka
