On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2018-04-18 20:32, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:00 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
>> > /*
>> > * audit_log_container_info - report container info
>> > - * @tsk: task to be recorded
>> > * @context: task or local context for record
>> > + * @op: containerid string description
>> > + * @containerid: container ID to report
>> > */
>> > -int audit_log_container_info(struct task_struct *tsk, struct audit_context *context)
>> > +int audit_log_container_info(struct audit_context *context,
>> > + char *op, u64 containerid)
>> > {
>> > struct audit_buffer *ab;
>> >
>> > - if (!audit_containerid_set(tsk))
>> > + if (!cid_valid(containerid))
>> > return 0;
>> > /* Generate AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO with container ID */
>> > ab = audit_log_start(context, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO);
>> > if (!ab)
>> > return -ENOMEM;
>> > - audit_log_format(ab, "contid=%llu", audit_get_containerid(tsk));
>> > + audit_log_format(ab, "op=%s contid=%llu", op, containerid);
>> > audit_log_end(ab);
>> > return 0;
>> > }
>>
>> Let's get these changes into the first patch where
>> audit_log_container_info() is defined. Why? This inserts a new field
>> into the record which is a no-no. Yes, it is one single patchset, but
>> they are still separate patches and who knows which patches a given
>> distribution and/or tree may decide to backport.
>
> Fair enough. That first thought went through my mind... Would it be
> sufficient to move that field addition to the first patch and leave the
> rest here to support trace and signals?
I should have been more clear ... yes, that's what I was thinking; the
record format is the important part as it's user visible.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
