On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 05:56:36 PM Paul Moore wrote: > On Monday, October 20, 2014 07:33:39 PM Steve Grubb wrote: > > On Monday, October 20, 2014 07:02:33 PM Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Monday, October 20, 2014 06:47:27 PM Eric Paris wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 16:25 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, October 02, 2014 11:06:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > > > This is a part of Peter Moody, my and Eric Paris' work to > > > > > > implement > > > > > > audit by executable name. > > > > > > > > > > Does this patch set define an AUDIT_VERSION_SOMETHING and then set > > > > > AUDIT_VERSION_LATEST to it? If not, I need one to tell if the kernel > > > > > supports it when issuing commands. Also, if its conceivable that > > > > > kernels > > > > > may pick and choose what features could be backported to a curated > > > > > kernel, should AUDIT_VERSION_ be a number that is incremented or a > > > > > bit > > > > > mask? > > > > > > > > Right now the value is 2. So this is your last hope if you want to > > > > make > > > > it a bitmask. I'll leave that up to paul/richard to (over) design. > > > > > > Audit is nothing if not over-designed. I want to make sure we're > > > consistent with the previous design methodologies ;) > > > > > > I've been thinking about this for about the past half-hour while I've > > > been > > > going through some other mail and I'm not really enthused about using > > > the > > > version number to encode capabilities. What sort of problems would we > > > have if we introduced a new audit netlink command to query the kernel > > > for > > > audit capabilities? > > > > I thought that is what we were getting in this patch: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2014-January/msg00054.html > > That patch, and the simple name "version", looks more like a version number > and not a capabilities bitmap. However, as Eric previously pointed out, > since we are only at version 2, all is not lost. > > > As I understood it, I send an AUDIT_GET command on netlink and then look > > in > > status.version to see what we have. I really think that in the mainline > > kernel, there will be a steady increment of capabilities. However, for > > distributions, they may want to pick and choose which capabilities to > > backport to their shipping kernel. Meaning in practice, a bitmap may be > > better to allow cherry picking capabilities and user space being able to > > make informed decisions. > > If we are intending to use this as a way of checking for functionality then > it really should be a bitmap and not a version number. Regardless of if we > are talking about an upstream or distribution kernel. > > > I really don't mind if this is done by a new netlink command (but if we > > do, > > what happens to status.version?) or if we just keep going with > > status.version. Just tell me which it is. > > No, let's stick with what we have now. I mistakenly assumed that since the > struct field and userspace #defines included "version" that the value was > actually a version number ... silly me, I have no idea why I thought that. > > So, with this in mind, I think a couple of small tweaks are in order (sorry > Richard), in no particular order: > > * Change the audit_status.version field comment in > include/uapi/linux/audit.h to "/* audit functionality bitmap */", or > similar. We can't really change the structure now, but the comment is fair > game. > > * Change AUDIT_VERSION_LATEST to a bitmask instead of a number. For > example, it should be 3 given the current code, not 2. In a perfect world > this wouldn't even be in the uapi header, but it is so we need to keep it > updated. Bumping it higher should be backwards compatible. > > Can anyone think of anything else that might be affected by this?
This plan sounds good to me. Thanks, -Steve -- 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/
