On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:11 PM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.le...@csgroup.eu> wrote:
> Le 24/08/2021 à 16:47, Paul Moore a écrit :
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 9:36 AM Christophe Leroy
> > <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Commit e65e1fc2d24b ("[PATCH] syscall class hookup for all normal
> >> targets") added generic support for AUDIT but that didn't include
> >> support for bi-arch like powerpc.
> >>
> >> Commit 4b58841149dc ("audit: Add generic compat syscall support")
> >> added generic support for bi-arch.
> >>
> >> Convert powerpc to that bi-arch generic audit support.
> >>
> >> Cc: Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com>
> >> Cc: Eric Paris <epa...@redhat.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu>
> >> ---
> >> Resending v2 with Audit people in Cc
> >>
> >> v2:
> >> - Missing 'git add' for arch/powerpc/include/asm/unistd32.h
> >> - Finalised commit description
> >> ---
> >> arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 5 +-
> >> arch/powerpc/include/asm/unistd32.h | 7 +++
> >> arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile | 3 --
> >> arch/powerpc/kernel/audit.c | 84 -----------------------------
> >> arch/powerpc/kernel/compat_audit.c | 44 ---------------
> >> 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 135 deletions(-)
> >> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/include/asm/unistd32.h
> >> delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kernel/audit.c
> >> delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kernel/compat_audit.c
> >
> > Can you explain, in detail please, the testing you have done to verify
> > this patch?
> >
>
> I built ppc64_defconfig and checked that the generated code is functionnaly
> equivalent.
>
> ppc32_classify_syscall() is exactly the same as
> audit_classify_compat_syscall() except that the
> later takes the syscall as second argument (ie in r4) whereas the former
> takes it as first argument
> (ie in r3).
>
> audit_classify_arch() and powerpc audit_classify_syscall() are slightly
> different between the
> powerpc version and the generic version because the powerpc version checks
> whether it is
> AUDIT_ARCH_PPC or not (ie value 20), while the generic one checks whether it
> has bit
> __AUDIT_ARCH_64BIT set or not (__AUDIT_ARCH_64BIT is the sign bit of a word),
> but taking into
> account that the abi is either AUDIT_ARCH_PPC, AUDIT_ARCH_PPC64 or
> AUDIT_ARCH_PPC64LE, the result is
> the same.
>
> If you are asking I guess you saw something wrong ?
I was asking because I didn't see any mention of testing, and when you
are enabling something significant like this it is nice to see that it
has been verified to work :)
While binary dumps and comparisons are nice, it is always good to see
verification from a test suite. I don't have access to the necessary
hardware to test this, but could you verify that the audit-testsuite
passes on your test system with your patches applied?
* https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-testsuite
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
