Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1577736799.git.rgb@redhat.com> <6452955c1e038227a5cd169f689f3fd3db27513f.1577736799.git.rgb@redhat.com>
 <CAHC9VhRkH=YEjAY6dJJHSp934grHnf=O4RiqLu3U8DzdVQOZkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200130192753.n7jjrshbhrczjzoe@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <CAHC9VhSVN3mNb5enhLR1hY+ekiAyiYWbehrwd_zN7kz13dF=1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200205235056.e5365xtgz7rbese2@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <CAHC9VhTM6MDHLcBfwJ_9DCroG0VA-meO770ihjn1sVy6=0JrHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200312205147.plxs4czjeuu4davj@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <CAHC9VhTqWdXMsbSbsWJzRRvVbSaaFBmnFFsVutM7XSx5NT_FJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200314224203.ncyx3rgwwe6zet4e@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20200314224203.ncyx3rgwwe6zet4e@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:08:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTy2ou-vadeMjgTaw-T9mW+nBjbqapA7RSW3EFNJ44JLw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V8 13/16] audit: track container nesting
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc:     nhorman@tuxdriver.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, dhowells@redhat.com,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
        netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        simo@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
        mpatel@redhat.com, Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 6:42 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2020-03-13 12:47, Paul Moore wrote:

...

> > It has been a while since I last looked at the patchset, but my
> > concern over the prefered use of the ACID number vs the ACID object is
> > that the number offers no reuse protection where the object does.  I
> > really would like us to use the object everywhere it is possible.
>
> Ok, so I take it from this that I go ahead with the dual format since
> the wrapper funciton to convert from object to ID strips away object
> information negating any benefit of favouring the object pointer.  I'll
> look at the remaining calls that use a contid (rather than contobj) and
> convert all that I can over to storing an object using the dual counters
> that track process exits versus signal2 and trace references.

Well, as I said in the other thread, I'm not sure we need a full two
counters; I think one counter and a simple flag should suffice.
Otherwise that sounds good for the next iteration.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com