Re: audit looks unmaintained? [was: Re: [PATCH 11/12] pid: rewrite task helper functions avoiding task->pid and task->tgid]

First of all, I do not pretend I understand this code. This was mostly the question, and in fact I mostly asked about audit_bprm() in 0/1. However, On 08/30, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Friday, August 30, 2013 03:06:46 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 07:11:34PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Btw. audit looks unmaintained... if you are going to take care of > > > this code, perhaps you can look at > > > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137589907108485 > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137590271809664 > > You don't want to clear the TIF audit flag when context == NULL. What that will > do is make a bunch of inauditable processes. There are times when audit is > disabled and then re-enabled later. If the flag gets cleared, then a task's > syscall will never enter the auditing framework from kernel/entry_64.S. > > That flag is 0 when auditing has never ever been enabled. If auditing is > enabled, it should always be a 1 unless the task filter has determined that > this process should not be audited ever. In practice, this is almost never > used. But ensuring the TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT set to 1 on all processes is why we > have the boot argument. Not setting audit=1 on the boot arguments means that > any process running before the audit daemon enables auditing can never ever be > audited because the only place its set is when processes are cloned. Then why audit_alloc() doesn't set TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT unconditionally? And I do not understand "when context == NULL" above. Say, audit_syscall_entry() does nothing if !audit_context, and nobody except copy_process() does audit_alloc(). So why do we need to trigger the audit's paths if it is NULL? > Hope this clears up the use. NAK to the patch, it'll break auditing. Not really, but thanks for your reply anyway.