From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 340B6C433E0 for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:22:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D53E52065F for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:22:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="X6g6dDBG" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D53E52065F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1590391370; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=FNPbRuKBx5NTWTzy+ToLBnh/WfqZEySFu4w0yHBMKiE=; b=X6g6dDBGb1+XwtriOhEKszOgr0EbVST5pZPJHIDGJWgmzVibRsO66mOGuXwuJl+w/2QykV 0O2HjmXLpRscUiltn2hpydrOLk8tEvFvRQUxJlXfbNzUYJSexiMT0z/buwAtYBbT70q4ip OQgHBsUsz3jwY76SneUk8b9I9DrGFI4= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-39-IFC5iRT-OYivFIwiyqVRYg-1; Mon, 25 May 2020 03:22:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: IFC5iRT-OYivFIwiyqVRYg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 169221902EAB; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:22:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9F7C5D9C5; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:22:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C1954D34; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:22:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 04P7MJO0021333 for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 03:22:19 -0400 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id B2B5C3322C; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:22:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast05.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63C6A1731D for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:22:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95F78833B4C for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 07:22:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from huawei.com (szxga06-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.32]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-96-ZLpgapjTM_Sm4agWKiRHQw-1; Mon, 25 May 2020 03:22:10 -0400 X-MC-Unique: ZLpgapjTM_Sm4agWKiRHQw-1 Received: from DGGEMS403-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 10878EB3AD0D68352DB7; Mon, 25 May 2020 15:22:05 +0800 (CST) Received: from DESKTOP-KBFSBNP.china.huawei.com (10.67.101.172) by DGGEMS403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Mon, 25 May 2020 15:22:02 +0800 From: Yiwen Gu To: , Subject: [RFC] audit: allow audit_reusename to check kernel path Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 15:21:56 +0800 Message-ID: <1590391317-71528-1-git-send-email-guyiwen@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.67.101.172] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.11.54.5 X-loop: linux-audit@redhat.com Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com X-BeenThere: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk List-Id: Linux Audit Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For now, we met a situation where the audit_reusename checking function returns the same filename structure for files sharing the same uptr. However, these files are different, and we are trying to open them in a loop where the names are loaded into the same address. Therefore, the function returns the same structure for different files. By the way, may I ask in what situation would the audit_list be kept across syscalls? -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit