From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: takahiro.akashi@linaro.org (AKASHI Takahiro)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:12:33 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/6] audit: Enable arm64 support
In-Reply-To: <20140123141808.GD27520@arm.com>
References: <1389946399-4525-1-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
 <1389946399-4525-2-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
 <20140123141808.GD27520@arm.com>
Message-ID: <52E5EAC1.2070306@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

[To audit maintainers]

On 01/23/2014 11:18 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 08:13:14AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/audit.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/audit.h
>> @@ -327,6 +327,8 @@ enum {
>>   /* distinguish syscall tables */
>>   #define __AUDIT_ARCH_64BIT 0x80000000
>>   #define __AUDIT_ARCH_LE	   0x40000000
>> +#define AUDIT_ARCH_AARCH64	(EM_AARCH64|__AUDIT_ARCH_64BIT|__AUDIT_ARCH_LE)
>> +#define AUDIT_ARCH_AARCH64EB	(EM_AARCH64|__AUDIT_ARCH_64BIT)
>>   #define AUDIT_ARCH_ALPHA	(EM_ALPHA|__AUDIT_ARCH_64BIT|__AUDIT_ARCH_LE)
>>   #define AUDIT_ARCH_ARM		(EM_ARM|__AUDIT_ARCH_LE)
>>   #define AUDIT_ARCH_ARMEB	(EM_ARM)
>> diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
>> index 79383d3..3aae602 100644
>> --- a/init/Kconfig
>> +++ b/init/Kconfig
>> @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ config AUDIT
>>
>>   config AUDITSYSCALL
>>   	bool "Enable system-call auditing support"
>> -	depends on AUDIT && (X86 || PARISC || PPC || S390 || IA64 || UML || SPARC64 || SUPERH || (ARM && AEABI && !OABI_COMPAT))
>> +	depends on AUDIT && (X86 || PARISC || PPC || S390 || IA64 || UML || SPARC64 || SUPERH || (ARM && AEABI && !OABI_COMPAT) || ARM64)
>
> The usual comment for such changes: could you please clean this up and
> just use something like "depends on HAVE_ARCH_AUDITSYSCALL"?

Do you agree to this change?

If so, I can create a patch, but have some concerns:
1) I can't verify it on other architectures than (arm &) arm64.
2) Some architectures (microblaze, mips, openrisc) are not listed here, but
    their ptrace.c have a call to audit_syscall_entry/exit().
    (audit_syscall_entry/exit are null if !AUDITSYSCALL, though)
So I'm afraid that the change might break someone's assumption.

Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI