On 4/27/2022 9:02 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:49 AM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/26/2022 12:18 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:58 PM John Johansen
<john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/26/22 11:03, Paul Moore wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 7:31 PM John Johansen
<john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/18/22 07:59, Casey Schaufler wrote:
Replace the timestamp and serial number pair used in audit records
with a structure containing the two elements.
Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/audit.c | 17 +++++++++--------
kernel/audit.h | 12 +++++++++---
kernel/auditsc.c | 22 +++++++++-------------
3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
...
diff --git a/kernel/audit.h b/kernel/audit.h
index 4af63e7dde17..260dab6e0e15 100644
--- a/kernel/audit.h
+++ b/kernel/audit.h
@@ -108,10 +114,10 @@ struct audit_context {
AUDIT_CTX_URING, /* in use by io_uring */
} context;
enum audit_state state, current_state;
+ struct audit_stamp stamp; /* event identifier */
unsigned int serial; /* serial number for record */
shouldn't we be dropping serial from the audit_context, since we have
moved it into the audit_stamp?
Unless we make some significant changes to audit_log_start() we still
need to preserve a timestamp in the audit_context so that regularly
associated audit records can share a common timestamp (which is what
groups multiple records into a single "event").
sure, but the patch changes things to use ctx->stamp.serial instead of
ctx->serial ...
My apologies, I read your original comment wrong; I was thinking you
were suggesting removing the timestamp info from audit_context in
favor of using the timestamp info contained in the audit_buffer.
Yes, audit_context:serial is no longer needed with audit_context:stamp.
Thank you for catching that. Easy (I expect) fix.
BTW, I'm not supposed to be working the next few weeks,
but I should be able to sneak v36 in before the next merge
window.
Enjoy the time away :)
FWIW, this isn't my call to make, but I would strongly prefer if this
got a *full* run in linux-next before it was merged into Linus' tree
during the merge window. For example, get this into the LSM -next
tree at -rc1 instead of -rc6.
I am in complete agreement. There's too much Murphy to rush it.
