On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:06 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 20:42:55 -0400
> Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2018-10-24 16:55, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:15 AM Richard Guy Briggs
> > > <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 2018-10-19 19:16, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 4:32 AM Richard Guy Briggs
> > > > > <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > + * audit_log_contid - report container info
> > > > > > + * @tsk: task to be recorded
> > > > > > + * @context: task or local context for record
> > > > > > + * @op: contid string description
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +int audit_log_contid(struct task_struct *tsk,
> > > > > > + struct audit_context *context,
> > > > > > char *op) +{
> > > > > > + struct audit_buffer *ab;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (!audit_contid_set(tsk))
> > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > > + /* Generate AUDIT_CONTAINER record with container ID
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > + ab = audit_log_start(context, GFP_KERNEL,
> > > > > > AUDIT_CONTAINER);
> > > > > > + if (!ab)
> > > > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > + audit_log_format(ab, "op=%s contid=%llu",
> > > > > > + op, audit_get_contid(tsk));
> > > > > > + audit_log_end(ab);
> > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_contid);
> > > > >
> > > > > As discussed in the previous iteration of the patch, I prefer
> > > > > AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID here over AUDIT_CONTAINER. If you feel
> > > > > strongly about keeping it as-is with AUDIT_CONTAINER I suppose
> > > > > I could live with that, but it is isn't my first choice.
> > > >
> > > > I don't have a strong opinion on this one, mildly preferring the
> > > > shorter one only because it is shorter.
> > >
> > > We already have multiple AUDIT_CONTAINER* record types, so it seems
> > > as though we should use "AUDIT_CONTAINER" as a prefix of sorts,
> > > rather than a type itself.
> >
> > I'm fine with that. I'd still like to hear Steve's input. He had
> > stronger opinions than me.
>
> The creation event should be separate and distinct from the continuing
> use when its used as a supplemental record. IOW, binding the ID to a
> container is part of the lifecycle and needs to be kept distinct.
Steve's comment is pretty ambiguous when it comes to AUDIT_CONTAINER
vs AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID, but one could argue that AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID
helps distinguish the audit container id marking record and gets to
what I believe is the spirit of Steve's comment. Taking this in
context with my previous remarks, let's switch to using
AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
