On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:01:54 -0500
>> > Will Drewry <wad@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
