On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:11 PM Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu> wrote: > Le 24/08/2021 à 16:47, Paul Moore a écrit : > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 9:36 AM Christophe Leroy > > <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu> wrote: > >> > >> Commit e65e1fc2d24b ("[PATCH] syscall class hookup for all normal > >> targets") added generic support for AUDIT but that didn't include > >> support for bi-arch like powerpc. > >> > >> Commit 4b58841149dc ("audit: Add generic compat syscall support") > >> added generic support for bi-arch. > >> > >> Convert powerpc to that bi-arch generic audit support. > >> > >> Cc: Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> > >> Cc: Eric Paris <epa...@redhat.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu> > >> --- > >> Resending v2 with Audit people in Cc > >> > >> v2: > >> - Missing 'git add' for arch/powerpc/include/asm/unistd32.h > >> - Finalised commit description > >> --- > >> arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 5 +- > >> arch/powerpc/include/asm/unistd32.h | 7 +++ > >> arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile | 3 -- > >> arch/powerpc/kernel/audit.c | 84 ----------------------------- > >> arch/powerpc/kernel/compat_audit.c | 44 --------------- > >> 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 135 deletions(-) > >> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/include/asm/unistd32.h > >> delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kernel/audit.c > >> delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kernel/compat_audit.c > > > > Can you explain, in detail please, the testing you have done to verify > > this patch? > > > > I built ppc64_defconfig and checked that the generated code is functionnaly > equivalent. > > ppc32_classify_syscall() is exactly the same as > audit_classify_compat_syscall() except that the > later takes the syscall as second argument (ie in r4) whereas the former > takes it as first argument > (ie in r3). > > audit_classify_arch() and powerpc audit_classify_syscall() are slightly > different between the > powerpc version and the generic version because the powerpc version checks > whether it is > AUDIT_ARCH_PPC or not (ie value 20), while the generic one checks whether it > has bit > __AUDIT_ARCH_64BIT set or not (__AUDIT_ARCH_64BIT is the sign bit of a word), > but taking into > account that the abi is either AUDIT_ARCH_PPC, AUDIT_ARCH_PPC64 or > AUDIT_ARCH_PPC64LE, the result is > the same. > > If you are asking I guess you saw something wrong ?
I was asking because I didn't see any mention of testing, and when you are enabling something significant like this it is nice to see that it has been verified to work :) While binary dumps and comparisons are nice, it is always good to see verification from a test suite. I don't have access to the necessary hardware to test this, but could you verify that the audit-testsuite passes on your test system with your patches applied? * https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-testsuite -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit