[2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: remove unused exports

[2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: remove unused exports

[Adrian Bunk]

This patch removes the following unused EXPORT_SYMBOL's:
- audit_log_start
- audit_log_end
- audit_log_format
- audit_log

Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>

---

This patch was already sent on:
- 20 Apr 2006

--- linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm3-full/kernel/audit.c.old	2006-04-20 22:38:17.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.17-rc1-mm3-full/kernel/audit.c	2006-04-20 22:40:03.000000000 +0200
@@ -1092,7 +1092,3 @@
 	}
 }
 
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_start);
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_end);
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_format);
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log);

Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: remove unused exports

[Tony Jones]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 02:28:48AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This patch removes the following unused EXPORT_SYMBOL's:
> - audit_log_start
> - audit_log_end
> - audit_log_format
> - audit_log
> 
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> 
> ---
> 
> This patch was already sent on:
> - 20 Apr 2006

I recall the opinion at the time was that it was considered useful to allow
third party modules to generate audit messages.  Has anything changed?

Tony

Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: remove unused exports

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 11:18 -0800, Tony Jones wrote:
> I recall the opinion at the time was that it was considered useful to allow
> third party modules to generate audit messages.  Has anything changed? 

It should at least be EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, not EXPORT_SYMBOL.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: remove unused exports

[Tony Jones]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 07:27:02PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 11:18 -0800, Tony Jones wrote:
> > I recall the opinion at the time was that it was considered useful to allow
> > third party modules to generate audit messages.  Has anything changed? 
> 
> It should at least be EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, not EXPORT_SYMBOL.

Agreed.  That sounds fine.

Tony

[2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: change the exports to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 07:27:02PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 11:18 -0800, Tony Jones wrote:
> > I recall the opinion at the time was that it was considered useful to allow
> > third party modules to generate audit messages.  Has anything changed? 
> 
> It should at least be EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, not EXPORT_SYMBOL.

So let's do at least the minimal patch noone disagrees with.

> dwmw2

cu
Adrian


<--  snip  -->


This patch changes some completely unused audit exports from 
EXPORT_SYMBOL to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.

They are still completely unused, but hopefully some of the theoretical 
code that might use it will appear in the kernel in the near future...

Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>

--- linux-2.6.19-mm1/kernel/audit.c.old	2006-12-11 20:13:54.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.19-mm1/kernel/audit.c	2006-12-11 20:14:19.000000000 +0100
@@ -1209,7 +1209,7 @@
 	}
 }
 
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_start);
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_end);
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_format);
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(audit_log_start);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(audit_log_end);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(audit_log_format);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(audit_log);

Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: change the exports to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

[Steve Grubb]

On Monday 11 December 2006 15:42, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > It should at least be EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, not EXPORT_SYMBOL.
>
> So let's do at least the minimal patch noone disagrees with.

This looks fine to me.

-Steve

Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: remove unused exports

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 11:18:09AM -0800, Tony Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 02:28:48AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > This patch removes the following unused EXPORT_SYMBOL's:
> > - audit_log_start
> > - audit_log_end
> > - audit_log_format
> > - audit_log
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > This patch was already sent on:
> > - 20 Apr 2006
> 
> I recall the opinion at the time was that it was considered useful to allow

"it was considered" = "you were the one person who said this"

> third party modules to generate audit messages.  Has anything changed?

Why are these third party modules you are talking about not yet merged 
into the kernel and when will they be submitted for inclusion?

> Tony

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: remove unused exports

[Tony Jones]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 04:04:41AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I recall the opinion at the time was that it was considered useful to allow
> 
> "it was considered" = "you were the one person who said this"

Actually I believe Steve Grubb also said it so the above is factually 
incorrect :)

> > third party modules to generate audit messages.  Has anything changed?
> 
> Why are these third party modules you are talking about not yet merged 
> into the kernel and when will they be submitted for inclusion?

We're talking about basic logging functionality here.  I know you love to
swing the cleanup hammer but ....... you get the idea.

Tony

Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: remove unused exports

[Steve Grubb]

On Wednesday 29 November 2006 02:42, Tony Jones wrote:
> Actually I believe Steve Grubb also said it so the above is factually
> incorrect :)

Yes, I did. I thought this was a dead issue since there was no follow up 
discussion when I said it.

> > > third party modules to generate audit messages.  Has anything changed?
> >
> > Why are these third party modules you are talking about not yet merged
> > into the kernel and when will they be submitted for inclusion?

It would appear that a new audit patch to ipsec wants these and a couple more 
things. So, at this point we should have something queued in netdev tree that 
will use these.

> We're talking about basic logging functionality here.

Exactly. I can see 3rd party security vendors perhaps using this interface as 
well. I don't personally know of any that are using it, nor am I in 
discussions with any, but I could see them eventually finding this and using 
it as they use other basic interfaces like syslog or file access.

-Steve

Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: remove unused exports

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 11:53:51AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 November 2006 02:42, Tony Jones wrote:
>...
> > > > third party modules to generate audit messages.  Has anything changed?
> > >
> > > Why are these third party modules you are talking about not yet merged
> > > into the kernel and when will they be submitted for inclusion?
> 
> It would appear that a new audit patch to ipsec wants these and a couple more 
> things. So, at this point we should have something queued in netdev tree that 
> will use these.

AFAIR, this ipsec patch only adds non-modular users.

> > We're talking about basic logging functionality here.
> 
> Exactly. I can see 3rd party security vendors perhaps using this interface as 
> well. I don't personally know of any that are using it, nor am I in 
> discussions with any, but I could see them eventually finding this and using 
> it as they use other basic interfaces like syslog or file access.

Reality has teached me that the only way to find out whether unused code 
is really unused is to send a patch and listen whether someone is 
screaming because he has an actual user. Then get this patch merged and 
listen whether someone is screaming because he had an actual user.

As an example, it has just turned out that at about half of the drivers 
that were not compiling and marked as BROKEN since at least 2.6.0 had 
patches floating around somewhere and sending a patch to remove code 
actually brought this code back into life.

We are talking about exports that are unused since they were introduced. 
Either there are no users, or the existing users need the biggest 
possible cluebat (removing the exports) reminding them that they should 
get their ass up and submit their modules for inclusion in the kernel.

Re-adding them when users are merged into the kernel will always be 
trivial.

> -Steve

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

[2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: change the exports to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

[Adrian Bunk]

This patch changes some completely unused audit exports from 
EXPORT_SYMBOL to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.

They are still completely unused, but hopefully some of the theoretical 
code that might use it will appear in the kernel in the near future...

Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Acked-by: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>

---

This patch has been sent on:
- 11 Dec 2006

--- linux-2.6.19-mm1/kernel/audit.c.old	2006-12-11 20:13:54.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.19-mm1/kernel/audit.c	2006-12-11 20:14:19.000000000 +0100
@@ -1209,7 +1209,7 @@
 	}
 }
 
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_start);
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_end);
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_format);
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(audit_log_start);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(audit_log_end);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(audit_log_format);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(audit_log);

Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: change the exports to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 17:02 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This patch changes some completely unused audit exports from 
> EXPORT_SYMBOL to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
> 
> They are still completely unused, but hopefully some of the theoretical 
> code that might use it will appear in the kernel in the near future...
\

at least make them _UNUSED_ so that people can select to not have these
take up space...

Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: change the exports to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

[Marcus Meissner]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:40:33AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 17:02 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > This patch changes some completely unused audit exports from 
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
> > 
> > They are still completely unused, but hopefully some of the theoretical 
> > code that might use it will appear in the kernel in the near future...

AppArmor uses the audit_log_* functions. (But it is GPL, so no worries).

Ciao, Marcus

Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: change the exports to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 21:33 +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:40:33AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 17:02 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > This patch changes some completely unused audit exports from 
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
> > > 
> > > They are still completely unused, but hopefully some of the theoretical 
> > > code that might use it will appear in the kernel in the near future...
> 
> AppArmor uses the audit_log_* functions. 

but it's not in the tree. So marking them _UNUSED_ in the tree is still
appropriate. They're there for the people who want them, they're not
there for those who want to save the space....


-- 
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org

Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: change the exports to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 05:02:33PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This patch changes some completely unused audit exports from 
> EXPORT_SYMBOL to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
> 
> They are still completely unused, but hopefully some of the theoretical 
> code that might use it will appear in the kernel in the near future...

Please kill them.  We can add exports back once people add users for them.

Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: change the exports to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

[Steve Grubb]

On Sunday 29 July 2007 11:02:33 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> They are still completely unused, but hopefully some of the theoretical
> code that might use it will appear in the kernel in the near future...
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> Acked-by: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>

I am reluctant to say that I ack this patch for a couple reasons:

1) We are talking about a basic logging facility that should be open like 
printk() is.

2) There are no user space GPL restrictions to use the audit netlink API, so 
why restrict who can send audit events via the in-kernel interfaces? It just 
doesn't make sense to have 2 different licenses for in-kernel vs user space 
audit event recording. Its the same subsystem differing only by where the 
event originated.

3) The API has been unrestricted for years. I don't think its a good idea to 
take a basic logging API away from people that have programmed to it.

4) In the absence of the in-kernel audit logging api, people will either 
create parallel infrastructure or resort to using printk. It will be 
difficult for end users to correlate security events from 2 different logs.

I would support there being a mechanism for anyone who wants to reduce the 
number of exported symbols for their own kernels - I believe that is the 
basic problem here. But I think there are enough reasons to continue keeping 
this API open and unrestricted for anyone that wants it that way.

-Steve

Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/audit.c: change the exports to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

[Adrian Bunk]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:18:41AM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Sunday 29 July 2007 11:02:33 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > They are still completely unused, but hopefully some of the theoretical
> > code that might use it will appear in the kernel in the near future...
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> > Acked-by: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
> 
> I am reluctant to say that I ack this patch for a couple reasons:
> 
> 1) We are talking about a basic logging facility that should be open like 
> printk() is.
> 
> 2) There are no user space GPL restrictions to use the audit netlink API, so 
> why restrict who can send audit events via the in-kernel interfaces? It just 
> doesn't make sense to have 2 different licenses for in-kernel vs user space 
> audit event recording. Its the same subsystem differing only by where the 
> event originated.

It's a well-known fact that there are legal differences between calling 
kernel services from userspace and kernel modules.

> 3) The API has been unrestricted for years. I don't think its a good idea to 
> take a basic logging API away from people that have programmed to it.

If it's such a basic API, why isn't there a single user in the kernel?

> 4) In the absence of the in-kernel audit logging api, people will either 
> create parallel infrastructure or resort to using printk. It will be 
> difficult for end users to correlate security events from 2 different logs.
> 
> I would support there being a mechanism for anyone who wants to reduce the 
> number of exported symbols for their own kernels - I believe that is the 
> basic problem here. But I think there are enough reasons to continue keeping 
> this API open and unrestricted for anyone that wants it that way.

The Linux kernel does not offer a stable kernel API for external modules.
That's a well-known fact.

> -Steve

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed