linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree with the security tree

2016-06-27 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the audit tree got conflicts in: arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c between commit: 0208b9445bc0 ("s390/ptrace: run seccomp after ptrace") from the security tree and commit: da7f750c1ef5 ("s390: ensure that syscall arguments are properly masked on s390") fr

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree with the security tree

2016-06-25 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:20:52PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > I'm a bit concerned about user space pointers passed as argument for compat > > tasks. These need to mask out 33 instead of 32 bits. This is of course > > system call specific and I don't know enough about audit to tell if it > > coul

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree with the security tree

2016-06-24 Thread Paul Moore
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:05:33AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: >> My immediate concern is making sure that we are at least recording the >> arguments correctly in the audit record. My simple tests look okay, >> but as I said before, I'm far f

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree with the security tree

2016-06-24 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:05:33AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > >> >> + audit_syscall_entry(regs->gprs[2], regs->orig_gpr2 & mask, > >> >> + regs->gprs[3] & mask, regs->gprs[4] & mask, > >> >> + regs->gprs[5] & mask); > >> > > >> > With these masks

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree with the security tree

2016-06-24 Thread Paul Moore
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:41 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:14:11PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Heiko Carstens >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:18:14PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> >> >> Today's linux-next me

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree with the security tree

2016-06-23 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:14:11PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Heiko Carstens > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:18:14PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi Paul, > >> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the audit tree got a conflict in: > >> > >> arch/s390/k

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree with the security tree

2016-06-23 Thread Paul Moore
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:18:14PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the audit tree got a conflict in: >> >> arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c >> >> between commit: >> >> 0208b9445bc0 ("s390/ptrace: run

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree with the security tree

2016-06-22 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:18:14PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the audit tree got a conflict in: > > arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c > > between commit: > > 0208b9445bc0 ("s390/ptrace: run seccomp after ptrace") > > from the security tree and commit:

linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree with the security tree

2016-06-22 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the audit tree got a conflict in: arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c between commit: 0208b9445bc0 ("s390/ptrace: run seccomp after ptrace") from the security tree and commit: bba696c2c083 ("s390: ensure that syscall arguments are properly masked on s390") f