On 16/06/09, Steve Grubb wrote:
 On Thursday, June 09, 2016 07:59:43 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
 > On 16/06/09, Steve Grubb wrote:
 > > On Wednesday, June 08, 2016 10:05:01 PM Deepa Dinamani wrote:
 > > > struct timespec is not y2038 safe.
 > > > Audit timestamps are recorded in string format into
 > > > an audit buffer for a given context.
 > > > These mark the entry timestamps for the syscalls.
 > > > Use y2038 safe struct timespec64 to represent the times.
 > > > The log strings can handle this transition as strings can
 > > > hold upto 1024 characters.
 > > 
 > > Have you tested this with ausearch or any audit utilities? As an aside, a
 > > time stamp that is up to 1024 characters long is terribly wasteful
 > > considering how many events we get.
 > 
 > Steve,
 > 
 > I don't expect the size of the time stamp text to change since the
 > format isn't being changed and I don't expect the date stamp text length
 > to change until Y10K, but you never know what will happen in 8
 > millenia...  (Who knows, maybe that damn Linux server in my basement
 > will still be running then...)
 > 
 > Isn't the maximum message length MAX_AUDIT_MESSAGE_LENGTH (8970 octets)?
 
 Bytes, yes. But I was thinking that if its going to get big we should consider 
 switching from a base 10 representation to base 16. That would give us back a 
 few bytes. We discuss this on the linux-audit list rather than the main list. 
This seems like a false economy to me.  If I understand correctly, it
will be 285 years before we roll the next text digit.  The next binary
digit in the internal kernel format is in 22 years.
I know there have been discussions about changing to a binary format,
which seems to have a lot more to offer than breaking the current format
for a few bytes.
Is this not the linux-audit main list?  Is there another one I am
missing?
 -Steve 
- RGB
--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com>
Kernel Security Engineering, Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635