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

[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