Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] audit: replace magic audit syscall class numbers with macros
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] audit: replace magic audit syscall class numbers with macros
- From: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 13:51:48 -0400
- Cc: Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@xxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx>, Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-parisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <20210511171356.GN3141668@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
- References: <cover.1619811762.git.rgb@redhat.com> <bda073f2a8b11000ef40cf8b965305409ee88f44.1619811762.git.rgb@redhat.com> <CAHC9VhShi4u26h5OsahveQDNxO_uZ+KgzGOYEp5W7w6foA-uKg@mail.gmail.com> <20210511171356.GN3141668@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:14 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2021-05-10 21:23, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 4:36 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Replace audit syscall class magic numbers with macros.
> > >
> > > This required putting the macros into new header file
> > > include/linux/auditscm.h since the syscall macros were included for both 64
> > > bit and 32 bit in any compat code, causing redefinition warnings.
> >
> > The ifndef/define didn't protect against redeclaration? Huh. Maybe
> > I'm not thinking about this correctly, or the arch specific code is
> > doing something wonky ...
> >
> > Regardless, assuming that it is necessary, I would prefer if we called
> > it auditsc.h instead of auditscm.h; the latter makes me think of
> > sockets and not syscalls.
>
> The "m" was for "macros", since there are auditsc bits in audit.h as
> well, but I have no significant objection.
Yes, I figured as much, but my comment about it looking like a socket
"thing" still stands. I'm open to other ideas if you don't like
auditsc.h, I just don't like auditscm.h.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]