From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH] XFRM: SPD auditing fix to include the netmask/prefix-length Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:45:46 -0500 Message-ID: <200711290845.46623.paul.moore@hp.com> References: <20071126195512.6176.10448.stgit@flek.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20071129103459.GD22537@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, Joy Latten To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from mailhub.hp.com ([192.151.27.10]:49839 "EHLO mailhub.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754610AbXK2Nqj (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:46:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20071129103459.GD22537@gondor.apana.org.au> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thursday 29 November 2007 5:34:59 am Herbert Xu wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 07:55:12PM +0000, Paul Moore wrote: > > Currently the netmask/prefix-length of an IPsec SPD entry is not included > > in any of the SPD related audit messages. This can cause a problem when > > the audit log is examined as the netmask/prefix-length is vital in > > determining what network traffic is affected by a particular SPD entry. > > This patch fixes this problem by adding two additional fields, > > "src_prefixlen" and "dst_prefixlen", to the SPD audit messages to > > indicate the source and destination netmasks. These new fields are only > > included in the audit message when the netmask/prefix-length is less than > > the address length, i.e. the SPD entry applies to a network address and > > not a host address. > > Any reason why we don't just always include them? The audit folks seem to be very sensitive to the size/length of the audit messages, they prefer they be as small as possible. I thought that one way to save space would be to only print the prefix length information when the address referred to a network and not a single host. Would you prefer it if the prefix length information was always included in the audit message? Joy? Audit folks? -- paul moore linux security @ hp