PERFORCE change 91049 for review

[Tom Rhodes]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 21:55:33 +0000 (GMT)
Robert Watson <rwatson at FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> 
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Tom Rhodes wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:53:40 GMT
> > Robert Watson <rwatson at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> >
> >> http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=91049
> >>
> >> Change 91049 by rwatson at rwatson_peppercorn on 2006/02/04 12:53:12
> >>
> >> 	When GC'ing a thread, assert that it has no active audit record.
> >> 	This should not happen, but with this assert, brueffer and I would
> >> 	not have spent 45 minutes trying to figure out why he wasn't
> >> 	seeing audit records with the audit version in CVS.
> >
> > Good catch!  I had just booted the new CURRENT and was wondering about this. 
> > Thanks!
> 
> In principle, Wayne committed support for the generation of system call based 
> records for i386 and amd64 early this afternoon, which should turn up if you 
> do a CVS update.  Chris and I have now tested it on i386 and amd64 to good 
> effect.  Ollivier has also now tested it on arm, although that requires 
> importing a bugfix from auditd regarding return types from getopt(), which 
> I'll merge as part of OpenBSM 1.0 alpha 3 in a couple of days.  Still looking 
> for people to test on alpha, sparc64, and powerpc.  Also, it would be useful 
> to test the auditing of i386 binaries running on amd64, which in principle 
> works, but is as yet untested.

I have an AMD64 and the Sparc64 (needs rebuild a bit).  Other
than the binaries, is there any other specifics you are looking
for?

-- 
Tom Rhodes
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at trustedbsd.org
with "unsubscribe trustedbsd-audit" in the body of the message