From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> Cc: casey.schaufler@intel.com, jmorris@namei.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, keescook@chromium.org, john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v32 26/28] Audit: Add record for multiple object security contexts Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 18:36:17 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAHC9VhR3d23Zd8=cP1=Sh5DjTEgEAyTc71M-zca4Beuiw7bywQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220202235323.23929-27-casey@schaufler-ca.com> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 7:23 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > > Create a new audit record AUDIT_MAC_OBJ_CONTEXTS. > An example of the MAC_OBJ_CONTEXTS (1421) record is: > > type=MAC_OBJ_CONTEXTS[1421] > msg=audit(1601152467.009:1050): > obj_selinux=unconfined_u:object_r:user_home_t:s0 > > When an audit event includes a AUDIT_MAC_OBJ_CONTEXTS record > the "obj=" field in other records in the event will be "obj=?". > An AUDIT_MAC_OBJ_CONTEXTS record is supplied when the system has > multiple security modules that may make access decisions based > on an object security context. > > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> > --- > include/linux/audit.h | 5 ++++ > include/uapi/linux/audit.h | 1 + > kernel/audit.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > kernel/auditsc.c | 37 ++++-------------------- > 4 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) ... > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c > index e8744e80ef21..3b9ce617b150 100644 > --- a/kernel/audit.c > +++ b/kernel/audit.c > @@ -2199,6 +2200,43 @@ int audit_log_task_context(struct audit_buffer *ab) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_task_context); > > +void audit_log_object_context(struct audit_buffer *ab, struct lsmblob *blob) > +{ > + struct audit_context_entry *ace; > + struct lsmcontext context; > + int error; > + > + if (!lsm_multiple_contexts()) { > + error = security_secid_to_secctx(blob, &context, LSMBLOB_FIRST); > + if (error) { > + if (error != -EINVAL) > + goto error_path; > + return; > + } > + audit_log_format(ab, " obj=%s", context.context); > + security_release_secctx(&context); > + } else { > + /* > + * If there is more than one security module that has a > + * object "context" it's necessary to put the object data > + * into a separate record to maintain compatibility. > + */ I know this is nitpicky, but I'm going to say it anyway ... the separate record isn't purely for compatibility reasons, it's for size reasons. There is a fear that multiple LSM labels could blow past the record size limit when combined with other fields, so putting them in their own dedicated record gives us more room. If that wasn't the case we could just tack them on the end of existing records. However, converting the existing "obj=" field into "obj=?" when multiple LSM labels are present *is* a compatibility nod as it allows existing userspace tooling that expects a single "obj=" field to continue to work. > + audit_log_format(ab, " obj=?"); > + ace = kzalloc(sizeof(*ace), ab->gfp_mask); > + if (!ace) > + goto error_path; > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ace->list); > + ace->type = AUDIT_MAC_OBJ_CONTEXTS; > + ace->lsm_objs = *blob; > + list_add(&ace->list, &ab->aux_records); > + } > + return; > + > +error_path: > + audit_panic("error in audit_log_object_context"); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_object_context); > + -- paul-moore.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> Cc: john.johansen@canonical.com, selinux@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, casey.schaufler@intel.com, sds@tycho.nsa.gov Subject: Re: [PATCH v32 26/28] Audit: Add record for multiple object security contexts Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 18:36:17 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAHC9VhR3d23Zd8=cP1=Sh5DjTEgEAyTc71M-zca4Beuiw7bywQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220202235323.23929-27-casey@schaufler-ca.com> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 7:23 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > > Create a new audit record AUDIT_MAC_OBJ_CONTEXTS. > An example of the MAC_OBJ_CONTEXTS (1421) record is: > > type=MAC_OBJ_CONTEXTS[1421] > msg=audit(1601152467.009:1050): > obj_selinux=unconfined_u:object_r:user_home_t:s0 > > When an audit event includes a AUDIT_MAC_OBJ_CONTEXTS record > the "obj=" field in other records in the event will be "obj=?". > An AUDIT_MAC_OBJ_CONTEXTS record is supplied when the system has > multiple security modules that may make access decisions based > on an object security context. > > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> > --- > include/linux/audit.h | 5 ++++ > include/uapi/linux/audit.h | 1 + > kernel/audit.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > kernel/auditsc.c | 37 ++++-------------------- > 4 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) ... > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c > index e8744e80ef21..3b9ce617b150 100644 > --- a/kernel/audit.c > +++ b/kernel/audit.c > @@ -2199,6 +2200,43 @@ int audit_log_task_context(struct audit_buffer *ab) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_task_context); > > +void audit_log_object_context(struct audit_buffer *ab, struct lsmblob *blob) > +{ > + struct audit_context_entry *ace; > + struct lsmcontext context; > + int error; > + > + if (!lsm_multiple_contexts()) { > + error = security_secid_to_secctx(blob, &context, LSMBLOB_FIRST); > + if (error) { > + if (error != -EINVAL) > + goto error_path; > + return; > + } > + audit_log_format(ab, " obj=%s", context.context); > + security_release_secctx(&context); > + } else { > + /* > + * If there is more than one security module that has a > + * object "context" it's necessary to put the object data > + * into a separate record to maintain compatibility. > + */ I know this is nitpicky, but I'm going to say it anyway ... the separate record isn't purely for compatibility reasons, it's for size reasons. There is a fear that multiple LSM labels could blow past the record size limit when combined with other fields, so putting them in their own dedicated record gives us more room. If that wasn't the case we could just tack them on the end of existing records. However, converting the existing "obj=" field into "obj=?" when multiple LSM labels are present *is* a compatibility nod as it allows existing userspace tooling that expects a single "obj=" field to continue to work. > + audit_log_format(ab, " obj=?"); > + ace = kzalloc(sizeof(*ace), ab->gfp_mask); > + if (!ace) > + goto error_path; > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ace->list); > + ace->type = AUDIT_MAC_OBJ_CONTEXTS; > + ace->lsm_objs = *blob; > + list_add(&ace->list, &ab->aux_records); > + } > + return; > + > +error_path: > + audit_panic("error in audit_log_object_context"); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_object_context); > + -- paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-03 23:36 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 91+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <20220202235323.23929-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com> 2022-02-02 23:52 ` [PATCH v32 00/28] LSM: Module stacking for AppArmor Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:52 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:52 ` [PATCH v32 01/28] integrity: disassociate ima_filter_rule from security_audit_rule Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:52 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:52 ` [PATCH v32 02/28] LSM: Infrastructure management of the sock security Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:52 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:52 ` [PATCH v32 03/28] LSM: Add the lsmblob data structure Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:52 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-04 10:48 ` Mickaël Salaün 2022-03-04 10:48 ` Mickaël Salaün 2022-03-04 19:14 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-04 19:14 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:52 ` [PATCH v32 04/28] LSM: provide lsm name and id slot mappings Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:52 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 05/28] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-22 23:20 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 06/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_audit_rule_match Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 07/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_kernel_act_as Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 08/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secctx_to_secid Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 09/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 10/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_ipc_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 11/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_current_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 12/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_inode_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 13/28] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_cred_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-03 5:23 ` kernel test robot 2022-02-03 5:23 ` kernel test robot 2022-02-03 14:07 ` kernel test robot 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 14/28] LSM: Specify which LSM to display Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 15/28] LSM: Ensure the correct LSM context releaser Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 16/28] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 17/28] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_inode_getsecctx Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 18/28] LSM: security_secid_to_secctx in netlink netfilter Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 19/28] NET: Store LSM netlabel data in a lsmblob Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 20/28] binder: Pass LSM identifier for confirmation Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 21/28] LSM: Extend security_secid_to_secctx to include module selection Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 22/28] Audit: Keep multiple LSM data in audit_names Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 23/28] Audit: Create audit_stamp structure Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 24/28] Audit: Add framework for auxiliary records Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-03 6:34 ` kernel test robot 2022-02-03 22:33 ` [RFC PATCH] Audit: __audit_log_end() can be static kernel test robot 2022-02-04 1:30 ` [PATCH v32 24/28] Audit: Add framework for auxiliary records kernel test robot 2022-03-02 22:32 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-02 22:32 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-03 22:27 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-03 22:27 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-03 22:33 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-03 22:33 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-03 22:43 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-03 22:43 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-03 22:55 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-03 22:55 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-03 23:36 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-03 23:36 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-04 2:13 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-04 2:13 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-04 14:43 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-04 14:43 ` Paul Moore 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 25/28] Audit: Add record for multiple task security contexts Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 26/28] Audit: Add record for multiple object " Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-03 5:23 ` kernel test robot 2022-02-03 5:43 ` kernel test robot 2022-03-03 23:36 ` Paul Moore [this message] 2022-03-03 23:36 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-04 1:26 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-04 1:26 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 27/28] LSM: Add /proc attr entry for full LSM context Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` [PATCH v32 28/28] AppArmor: Remove the exclusive flag Casey Schaufler 2022-02-02 23:53 ` Casey Schaufler
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to='CAHC9VhR3d23Zd8=cP1=Sh5DjTEgEAyTc71M-zca4Beuiw7bywQ@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=paul@paul-moore.com \ --cc=casey.schaufler@intel.com \ --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \ --cc=jmorris@namei.org \ --cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \ --cc=keescook@chromium.org \ --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \ --cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \ --cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.