Re: [PATCH v35 23/29] Audit: Create audit_stamp structure
From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date: 2022-04-27 16:03:36
Also in:
lkml, selinux
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:49 AM Casey Schaufler [off-list ref] wrote:
On 4/26/2022 12:18 PM, Paul Moore wrote:quoted
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:58 PM John Johansen [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On 4/26/22 11:03, Paul Moore wrote:quoted
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 7:31 PM John Johansen [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On 4/18/22 07:59, Casey Schaufler wrote:quoted
Replace the timestamp and serial number pair used in audit records with a structure containing the two elements. Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> --- kernel/audit.c | 17 +++++++++-------- kernel/audit.h | 12 +++++++++--- kernel/auditsc.c | 22 +++++++++------------- 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)...quoted
quoted
diff --git a/kernel/audit.h b/kernel/audit.h index 4af63e7dde17..260dab6e0e15 100644 --- a/kernel/audit.h +++ b/kernel/audit.h@@ -108,10 +114,10 @@ struct audit_context { AUDIT_CTX_URING, /* in use by io_uring */ } context; enum audit_state state, current_state; + struct audit_stamp stamp; /* event identifier */ unsigned int serial; /* serial number for record */shouldn't we be dropping serial from the audit_context, since we have moved it into the audit_stamp?Unless we make some significant changes to audit_log_start() we still need to preserve a timestamp in the audit_context so that regularly associated audit records can share a common timestamp (which is what groups multiple records into a single "event").sure, but the patch changes things to use ctx->stamp.serial instead of ctx->serial ...My apologies, I read your original comment wrong; I was thinking you were suggesting removing the timestamp info from audit_context in favor of using the timestamp info contained in the audit_buffer. Yes, audit_context:serial is no longer needed with audit_context:stamp.Thank you for catching that. Easy (I expect) fix. BTW, I'm not supposed to be working the next few weeks, but I should be able to sneak v36 in before the next merge window.
Enjoy the time away :) FWIW, this isn't my call to make, but I would strongly prefer if this got a *full* run in linux-next before it was merged into Linus' tree during the merge window. For example, get this into the LSM -next tree at -rc1 instead of -rc6. -- paul-moore.com