Re: [PATCH] improved xfrm_audit_log() patch

[Joy Latten <latten@austin.ibm.com>]

On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 20:05 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> I would suggest, at this point, to make purpose built situation
> specific interfaces that pass specific objects (the ones being
> operated upon) to the audit layer.
> 
> Let the audit layer pick out the bits it actually wants in the
> format it likes.
> 
> For example, if we're creating a template, pass the policy and
> the templace to the audit layer via a function called:
> 
> xfrm_audit_template_add()
> 
> or something like that.  That function only needs two arguments.
> 
> All of these call sites will rarely need more than 2 or 3 arguments in
> any given situation, and the on-stack audit thing will be gone too.
> 
> This is the suggestion I made to you over a month ago, but you choose
> to do the on-stack thing.
> 
I misunderstood. My bad.

For clarification, I plan on removing xfrm_audit_log() and replacing it
with more specific ipsec audit interfaces. 

For example, when auditing the addition of a policy, either
xfrm_user_audit_policy_add(xp, result, skb) or
pfkey_audit_policy_add(xp, result) will get called. 
I need two because xfrm_user gets loginuid/secid from netlink/skb
and pfkey gets it from audit_get_loginuid(). 
Each will setup and format audit buffer according
to what they want.

Also, for deleting, there will be pfkey_audit_policy_delete(xp, result)
and xfrm_user_audit_policy_delete(xp, result, skb).

> You must make this cost absolutely nothing when it is either
> not configured, and have next to no cost when not enabled at
> run time.  And it is very doable.

The new ipsec audit functions can be ifdef'd with CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL
just as xfrm_audit_log() was so that there is no cost when 
audit is not configured. 

Let me know if this is better.

Regards,
Joy