[PATCH ghak84 v4] audit: purge audit_log_string from the intra-kernel audit API

[Paul Moore]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:00 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2020-07-14 16:29, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:44 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On 2020-07-14 12:21, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:52 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > audit_log_string() was inteded to be an internal audit function and
> > > > > since there are only two internal uses, remove them.  Purge all external
> > > > > uses of it by restructuring code to use an existing audit_log_format()
> > > > > or using audit_log_format().
> > > > >
> > > > > Please see the upstream issue
> > > > > https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/84
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Passes audit-testsuite.
> > > > >
> > > > > Changelog:
> > > > > v4
> > > > > - use double quotes in all replaced audit_log_string() calls
> > > > >
> > > > > v3
> > > > > - fix two warning: non-void function does not return a value in all control paths
> > > > >         Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp at intel.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > v2
> > > > > - restructure to piggyback on existing audit_log_format() calls, checking quoting needs for each.
> > > > >
> > > > > v1 Vlad Dronov
> > > > > - https://github.com/nefigtut/audit-kernel/commit/dbbcba46335a002f44b05874153a85b9cc18aebf
> > > > >
> > > > >  include/linux/audit.h     |  5 -----
> > > > >  kernel/audit.c            |  4 ++--
> > > > >  security/apparmor/audit.c | 10 ++++------
> > > > >  security/apparmor/file.c  | 25 +++++++------------------
> > > > >  security/apparmor/ipc.c   | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> > > > >  security/apparmor/net.c   | 14 ++++++++------
> > > > >  security/lsm_audit.c      |  4 ++--
> > > > >  7 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for restoring the quotes, just one question below ...
> > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/security/apparmor/ipc.c b/security/apparmor/ipc.c
> > > > > index 4ecedffbdd33..fe36d112aad9 100644
> > > > > --- a/security/apparmor/ipc.c
> > > > > +++ b/security/apparmor/ipc.c
> > > > > @@ -20,25 +20,23 @@
> > > > >
> > > > >  /**
> > > > >   * audit_ptrace_mask - convert mask to permission string
> > > > > - * @buffer: buffer to write string to (NOT NULL)
> > > > >   * @mask: permission mask to convert
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * Returns: pointer to static string
> > > > >   */
> > > > > -static void audit_ptrace_mask(struct audit_buffer *ab, u32 mask)
> > > > > +static const char *audit_ptrace_mask(u32 mask)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >         switch (mask) {
> > > > >         case MAY_READ:
> > > > > -               audit_log_string(ab, "read");
> > > > > -               break;
> > > > > +               return "read";
> > > > >         case MAY_WRITE:
> > > > > -               audit_log_string(ab, "trace");
> > > > > -               break;
> > > > > +               return "trace";
> > > > >         case AA_MAY_BE_READ:
> > > > > -               audit_log_string(ab, "readby");
> > > > > -               break;
> > > > > +               return "readby";
> > > > >         case AA_MAY_BE_TRACED:
> > > > > -               audit_log_string(ab, "tracedby");
> > > > > -               break;
> > > > > +               return "tracedby";
> > > > >         }
> > > > > +       return "";
> > > >
> > > > Are we okay with this returning an empty string ("") in this case?
> > > > Should it be a question mark ("?")?
> > > >
> > > > My guess is that userspace parsing should be okay since it still has
> > > > quotes, I'm just not sure if we wanted to use a question mark as we do
> > > > in other cases where the field value is empty/unknown.
> > >
> > > Previously, it would have been an empty value, not even double quotes.
> > > "?" might be an improvement.
> >
> > Did you want to fix that now in this patch, or leave it to later?  As
> > I said above, I'm not too bothered by it with the quotes so either way
> > is fine by me.
>
> I'd defer to Steve, otherwise I'd say leave it, since there wasn't
> anything there before and this makes that more evident.
>
> > John, I'm assuming you are okay with this patch?

With no comments from John or Steve in the past week, I've gone ahead
and merged the patch into audit/next.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com