Re: [PATCH ghak84 v4] audit: purge audit_log_string from the intra-kernel audit API

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:52 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > audit_log_string() was inteded to be an internal audit function and > since there are only two internal uses, remove them. Purge all external > uses of it by restructuring code to use an existing audit_log_format() > or using audit_log_format(). > > Please see the upstream issue > https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/84 > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; > --- > Passes audit-testsuite. > > Changelog: > v4 > - use double quotes in all replaced audit_log_string() calls > > v3 > - fix two warning: non-void function does not return a value in all control paths > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp(a)intel.com&gt; > > v2 > - restructure to piggyback on existing audit_log_format() calls, checking quoting needs for each. > > v1 Vlad Dronov > - https://github.com/nefigtut/audit-kernel/commit/dbbcba46335a002f44b058741... > > include/linux/audit.h | 5 ----- > kernel/audit.c | 4 ++-- > security/apparmor/audit.c | 10 ++++------ > security/apparmor/file.c | 25 +++++++------------------ > security/apparmor/ipc.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- > security/apparmor/net.c | 14 ++++++++------ > security/lsm_audit.c | 4 ++-- > 7 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-) Thanks for restoring the quotes, just one question below ... > diff --git a/security/apparmor/ipc.c b/security/apparmor/ipc.c > index 4ecedffbdd33..fe36d112aad9 100644 > --- a/security/apparmor/ipc.c > +++ b/security/apparmor/ipc.c > @@ -20,25 +20,23 @@ > > /** > * audit_ptrace_mask - convert mask to permission string > - * @buffer: buffer to write string to (NOT NULL) > * @mask: permission mask to convert > + * > + * Returns: pointer to static string > */ > -static void audit_ptrace_mask(struct audit_buffer *ab, u32 mask) > +static const char *audit_ptrace_mask(u32 mask) > { > switch (mask) { > case MAY_READ: > - audit_log_string(ab, "read"); > - break; > + return "read"; > case MAY_WRITE: > - audit_log_string(ab, "trace"); > - break; > + return "trace"; > case AA_MAY_BE_READ: > - audit_log_string(ab, "readby"); > - break; > + return "readby"; > case AA_MAY_BE_TRACED: > - audit_log_string(ab, "tracedby"); > - break; > + return "tracedby"; > } > + return ""; Are we okay with this returning an empty string ("") in this case? Should it be a question mark ("?")? My guess is that userspace parsing should be okay since it still has quotes, I'm just not sure if we wanted to use a question mark as we do in other cases where the field value is empty/unknown.

paul moore