Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND] powerpc/audit: Convert powerpc to AUDIT_ARCH_COMPAT_GENERIC
From: Paul Moore
Date: Tue Aug 24 2021 - 19:02:03 EST
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:11 PM Christophe Leroy
> Le 24/08/2021 à 16:47, Paul Moore a écrit :
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 9:36 AM Christophe Leroy
> > <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> 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?