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 13:19:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131202181937.GG20438@madcap2.tricolour.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFftDdrba4va83GHaEt2nhjPTg=_5BhpNePqoU7=LX0B4zUK9w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 10:10:27AM -0800, William Roberts wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 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...
>
> You read my mind here after I sent this, this is exactly what I was thinking.
>
> When I am done do I publish this to kernel mainline, here, or elsewhere?
Both here and lkml would make sense. Find the respective maintainers
using scripts/get_maintainer.pl and Cc: them.
> 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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-02 18:19 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
2013-12-02 18:10 ` William Roberts
2013-12-02 18:19 ` Richard Guy Briggs [this message]
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=20131202181937.GG20438@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