On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 09:32:49AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > I just realised, the funny thing about this is that the machine running
> > that test
> > had selinux/audit disabled. And yet here we are, screwing around with
> > audit buffers.
>
> The intent was to have this message show up in dmesg even if auditd
> wasn't running, and even if the specific process wasn't being
> explicitly audited.
>
> > Should there be a test on audit_enable=0 in audit_log_link_denied() ?
> >
> > I'm now curious how much more of the audit code is getting run through
> > similar lack of tests
>
> What is the condition in which audit_log_start fails?
in the case of that oops, given I had booted with audit=0, I suspect it was
hitting the first check...
1157 if (audit_initialized != AUDIT_INITIALIZED)
1158 return NULL;
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
