On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:40 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 2018-07-20 18:14, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 1:01 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > Standalone audit records have the timestamp and serial number generated
> > on the fly and as such are unique, making them standalone. This new
> > function audit_alloc_local() generates a local audit context that will
> > be used only for a standalone record and its auxiliary record(s). The
> > context is discarded immediately after the local associated records are
> > produced.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/audit.h | 8 ++++++++
> > kernel/auditsc.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
...
> > + struct audit_context *context;
> > +
> > + if (!audit_ever_enabled)
> > + return NULL; /* Return if not auditing. */
> > +
> > + context = audit_alloc_context(AUDIT_RECORD_CONTEXT);
> > + if (!context)
> > + return NULL;
> > + context->serial = audit_serial();
> > + context->ctime = current_kernel_time64();
> > + context->in_syscall = 1;
>
> Setting in_syscall is both interesting and a bit troubling, if for no
> other reason than I expect most (all?) callers to be in an interrupt
> context when audit_alloc_local() is called. Setting in_syscall would
> appear to be conceptually in this case. Can you help explain why this
> is the right thing to do, or necessary to ensure things are handled
> correctly?
I'll admit this is cheating a bit, but seemed harmless. It is needed so
that auditsc_get_stamp() from audit_get_stamp() from audit_log_start()
doesn't bail on me without giving me its already assigned time and
serial values rather than generating a new one. I did look to see if
there were any other undesireable side effects and found none, so I'm
tmepted to rename the ->in_syscall to something a bit more helpful. I
could add a new audit_context structure member to make
auditsc_get_stamp() co-operative, but this seems wasteful and
unnecessary.
That's what I suspected.
Let's look into renaming the "in_syscall" field, it borderline
confusing now, and hijacking it for something which is very obviously
not "in syscall" is A Very Bad Thing.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com