Re: Refactoring src/ausearch-report.c:output_interpreted_node()

Thanks Steve, Patch to follow this weekend. Rgds On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 18:28 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Thursday, October 02, 2014 07:52:47 AM Burn Alting wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 17:19 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > On Thursday, October 02, 2014 07:08:13 AM Burn Alting wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 14:54 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > > > > I am uncertain what effect of accepting this additional format would > > > > > > have when adding rules to the running audit system - i.e. > > > > > > audit_name_to_msg_type() is called by autrace/auditctl when parsing > > > > > > rules (ie the msgtype field name). > > > > > > > > > > I think ausearch-report.c might be the place that needs updating. > > > > > > > > So, could we modify output_interpreted_node() to no longer re-parse the > > > > > > > > [node=<node>] type=<type> msg=audit(<epochsecs>.<msecs>:<serial>) > > > > > > > > header and pass both the lnode and llist->e which has this data already > > > > as the code > > > > > > > > if (num == -1) { > > > > > > > > // see if we are older and wiser now. > > > > bptr = strchr(str, '['); > > > > if (bptr && bptr < ptr) { > > > > > > > > char *eptr; > > > > bptr++; > > > > eptr = strchr(bptr, ']'); > > > > if (eptr) { > > > > > > > > *eptr = 0; > > > > errno = 0; > > > > num = strtoul(bptr, NULL, 10); > > > > *eptr = ']'; > > > > if (errno) > > > > > > > > num = -1; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > which parses for > > > > > > > > type=.*[n].* > > > > > > > > is no longer needed as we don't have that format any more? > > > > > > That is a very loose check for UNKNOWN[####]. If you see a performance > > > improvement by refactoring this function, please send a patch. The output > > > needs to be identical to the old way. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -Steve > > > > I can provide a patch to refactor this part of the code, but I want to > > confirm there is no longer a need to parse for > > > > type=some_text '[' integer_type ']' some_other_text > > While this may have been implied by the code, the fact is that [ ] would only > be in type fields when its unknown[####]. > > > > given my refactoring will rely upon the parsing already done by > > lib/lookup_table.c:audit_name_to_msg_type(). Remember this routine only > > parses for > > Given > > type=<type_value> > > then > > <type_value> > > is parsed for > > - a known string > > - a long integer number, n, found in the specific string > > "UNKNOWN[n]" > > - a long integer number, n, found in the specific string > > "n" > > These 3 formats are all that it can ever be. So, I think you have a correct > understanding. > > -Steve -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit