public inbox for linux-audit@redhat.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
To: William Roberts <bill.c.roberts@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Follow up on command line auditing
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:18:59 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131202171859.GA20495@madcap2.tricolour.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFftDdr7RwMV=gwX3B+Q-wC6XfgiC9YB8++h08RWHS+CJvR1dw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 08:20:10AM -0800, William Roberts wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 07:42:20AM -0800, William Roberts wrote:
> >> Changelog since last post:
> >> * Rebase on latest master
> >>
> >> [PATCH] audit: Audit proc cmdline value
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > I wasn't expecting that you would squash everything down into one patch.
> > I think it should be at least two.  I'm comfortable with the changes in
> > the audit subsystem.  Could those be one patch?  As for the changes to
> > proc (including base and util) those might be better as a seperate
> > patch.
> 
> Richard,
> Ok so what do you think the best way forward is? I don't want to duplicate
> code from proc/base.c. I would need to export proc_pid_cmdline()
> in the first patch or re-implement it in the audit subsystem, followed
> by a patch
> to merge the functionality. What would you prefer?

I would split them into 3 patches:

1) implement the length and copy funcitons:
 include/linux/mm.h |    7 +++++
 mm/util.c          |   48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2) use them in the proc call:
 fs/proc/base.c     |   35 +++++++---------------

3) use them in audit:
 kernel/audit.h     |    1 +
 kernel/auditsc.c   |   82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Does this split make sense?  Combining 1 and 2 might be acceptable to
those subsystem maintainers...

> Bill

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@redhat.com>
Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545

  reply	other threads:[~2013-12-02 17:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-12-02 15:42 Follow up on command line auditing William Roberts
2013-12-02 15:42 ` [PATCH] audit: Audit proc cmdline value William Roberts
2013-12-02 16:07 ` Follow up on command line auditing Richard Guy Briggs
2013-12-02 16:20   ` William Roberts
2013-12-02 17:18     ` Richard Guy Briggs [this message]
2013-12-02 18:10       ` William Roberts
2013-12-02 18:19         ` Richard Guy Briggs

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20131202171859.GA20495@madcap2.tricolour.ca \
    --to=rgb@redhat.com \
    --cc=bill.c.roberts@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox