Re: Follow up on command line auditing

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 08:20:10AM -0800, William Roberts wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 07:42:20AM -0800, William Roberts wrote: >> >> Changelog since last post: >> >> * Rebase on latest master >> >> >> >> [PATCH] audit: Audit proc cmdline value >> > >> > Hi Bill, >> > >> > I wasn't expecting that you would squash everything down into one patch. >> > I think it should be at least two. I'm comfortable with the changes in >> > the audit subsystem. Could those be one patch? As for the changes to >> > proc (including base and util) those might be better as a seperate >> > patch. >> >> Richard, >> Ok so what do you think the best way forward is? I don't want to duplicate >> code from proc/base.c. I would need to export proc_pid_cmdline() >> in the first patch or re-implement it in the audit subsystem, followed >> by a patch >> to merge the functionality. What would you prefer? > > I would split them into 3 patches: > > 1) implement the length and copy funcitons: > include/linux/mm.h | 7 +++++ > mm/util.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2) use them in the proc call: > fs/proc/base.c | 35 +++++++--------------- > > 3) use them in audit: > kernel/audit.h | 1 + > kernel/auditsc.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Does this split make sense? Combining 1 and 2 might be acceptable to > those subsystem maintainers... You read my mind here after I sent this, this is exactly what I was thinking. When I am done do I publish this to kernel mainline, here, or elsewhere?

Bill