Re: [PATCH ghak80 V1] audit: add syscall information to FEATURE_CHANGE records

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On 2018-04-17 18:06, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> > Tie syscall information to FEATURE_CHANGE calls since it is a result of >> > user action. >> > >> > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/80 >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; >> > --- >> > kernel/audit.c | 5 ++--- >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c >> > index 8da24ef..23f125b 100644 >> > --- a/kernel/audit.c >> > +++ b/kernel/audit.c >> > @@ -1103,10 +1103,9 @@ static void audit_log_feature_change(int which, u32 old_feature, u32 new_feature >> > { >> > struct audit_buffer *ab; >> > >> > - if (audit_enabled == AUDIT_OFF) >> > + if (!audit_enabled) >> >> Sooo, this is an unrelated style change, why? Looking at the rest of >> kernel/audit.c we seem to use a mix of "(!x)" and "(x == 0/CONST)" so >> why are you adding noise to this patch? > > Ok, survey sez 25 instances of audit_enabled used as a boolean vs 7 > instances where it could be used as a boolean where the expression is > made harder to read (in my opinion). I thought it was worth changing to > read the same way most of the other instances I've been reviewing are > written. There are only two where the non-boolean distiction with > AUDIT_LOCKED is required. Thanks for the explanation. While I still believe this patch, and connecting records in general, is the Right Thing To Do, I'm expecting there to be some hate mail on this issue and I would like to keep the patch as small and as straight-to-the-point as possible just so there is little confusion about what is changing. Please respin this without the style change and I'll merge it as soon as I see it. Alternatively, give me the "ok" and I'll merge the patch now and just drop the style change; after all we're talking about one line in a five line patch ;)

>> > return; >> > - >> > - ab = audit_log_start(NULL, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_FEATURE_CHANGE); >> > + ab = audit_log_start(current->audit_context, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_FEATURE_CHANGE); >> >> This is the important part, and the Right Thing To Do. >> >> > if (!ab) >> > return; >> > audit_log_task_info(ab, current); -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com