Re: [PATCH v35 23/29] Audit: Create audit_stamp structure

Casey Schaufler
2022-04-27T15:50:33Z

On 4/26/2022 12:18 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:58 PM John Johansen
> <john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote:
>> On 4/26/22 11:03, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 7:31 PM John Johansen
>>> <john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/22 07:59, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>>> Replace the timestamp and serial number pair used in audit records
>>>>> with a structure containing the two elements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> kernel/audit.c | 17 +++++++++--------
>>>>> kernel/audit.h | 12 +++++++++---
>>>>> kernel/auditsc.c | 22 +++++++++-------------
>>>>> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/audit.h b/kernel/audit.h
>>>>> index 4af63e7dde17..260dab6e0e15 100644
>>>>> --- a/kernel/audit.h
>>>>> +++ b/kernel/audit.h
>>>>> @@ -108,10 +114,10 @@ struct audit_context {
>>>>> AUDIT_CTX_URING, /* in use by io_uring */
>>>>> } context;
>>>>> enum audit_state state, current_state;
>>>>> + struct audit_stamp stamp; /* event identifier */
>>>>> unsigned int serial; /* serial number for record */
>>>> shouldn't we be dropping serial from the audit_context, since we have
>>>> moved it into the audit_stamp?
>>> Unless we make some significant changes to audit_log_start() we still
>>> need to preserve a timestamp in the audit_context so that regularly
>>> associated audit records can share a common timestamp (which is what
>>> groups multiple records into a single "event").
>>>
>> sure, but the patch changes things to use ctx->stamp.serial instead of
>> ctx->serial ...
> My apologies, I read your original comment wrong; I was thinking you
> were suggesting removing the timestamp info from audit_context in
> favor of using the timestamp info contained in the audit_buffer.
>
> Yes, audit_context:serial is no longer needed with audit_context:stamp.

Thank you for catching that. Easy (I expect) fix.
BTW, I'm not supposed to be working the next few weeks,
but I should be able to sneak v36 in before the next merge
window.