Hello,
Just spent some time debugging auditctl, it was doing something I thought was
weird. I tracked it down to this patch, see below for commentary...
On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:11:44 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> The audit_status structure was not designed with extensibility in mind.
> Define a new
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 03:26 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:11:44PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> > The audit_status structure was not designed with extensibility in mind.
> > Define a new AUDIT_SET_FEATURE message type which takes a new structure
> > of bits where things
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:11:44PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> The audit_status structure was not designed with extensibility in mind.
> Define a new AUDIT_SET_FEATURE message type which takes a new structure
> of bits where things can be enabled/disabled/locked one at a time. This
> structure shou
On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:11:44 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> +static void audit_log_feature_change(int which, u32 old_feature, u32
> new_feature, + u32 old_lock, u32
> new_lock, int res)
> +{
> + struct audit_buffer *ab;
> +
> + ab = audit_log_start(NULL, GFP
On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 14:30 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > I can certainly shoehorn a 4 state interface into AUDIT_SET/GET.
>
> Does the new interface support more than 4 a state variable? Suppose
> we need
> to set a number value like 8192, will it do that?
No. The new interface is written to
On Monday, July 08, 2013 05:55:07 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 16:28 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:11:44 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> > > The audit_status structure was not designed with extensibility in mind.
> > > Define a new AUDIT_SET_FEATURE message type wh
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 16:28 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:11:44 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> > > The audit_status structure was not designed with extensibility in mind.
> > > Define a new AUDIT_SET_FEATURE message type which
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 16:28 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:11:44 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> > The audit_status structure was not designed with extensibility in mind.
> > Define a new AUDIT_SET_FEATURE message type which takes a new structure
> > of bits where things can be enabl
On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:11:44 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> The audit_status structure was not designed with extensibility in mind.
> Define a new AUDIT_SET_FEATURE message type which takes a new structure
> of bits where things can be enabled/disabled/locked one at a time.
This changes how we have be
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:11:44PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> The audit_status structure was not designed with extensibility in mind.
> Define a new AUDIT_SET_FEATURE message type which takes a new structure
> of bits where things can be enabled/disabled/locked one at a time. This
> structure shou
A couple other comments I missed before:
#define AUDIT_FEATURE_TO_MASK(x) (1 << ((x) & 31)) /* mask for __u32
*/
Why &31 --> if someone adds more than 5 things, they will git dropped out...
#define AUDIT_FEATURE_TO_MASK(x) (1 << ((x) & (~(__u32)0))) /* mask
for __u32 */
something
Looking through the patch, these are my thoughts:
I like that my "splitlog" patch shrunk a lot, way easier. I like that. It
also proves something like this is the correct direction.
Shouldn't audit_set_feature() check the version number, granted it doesn't
mater now, but shouldn't their be a:
i
On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 12:11 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> The audit_status structure was not designed with extensibility in mind.
> Define a new AUDIT_SET_FEATURE message type which takes a new structure
> of bits where things can be enabled/disabled/locked one at a time. This
> structure should be a
The audit_status structure was not designed with extensibility in mind.
Define a new AUDIT_SET_FEATURE message type which takes a new structure
of bits where things can be enabled/disabled/locked one at a time. This
structure should be able to grow in the future while maintaining forward
and backw
14 matches
Mail list logo
