From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> To: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>, casey.schaufler@intel.com, jmorris@namei.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, keescook@chromium.org, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v35 22/29] Audit: Keep multiple LSM data in audit_names Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:57:55 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRhDGMUH-WfyoMDLdDFWbzTcDGhKFZNB22-Ha3dhUKyCQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <c196795a-910a-1e70-4809-c96717767e39@canonical.com> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 7:32 PM John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote: > On 4/18/22 07:59, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > Replace the osid field in the audit_names structure > > with a lsmblob structure. This accomodates the use > > of an lsmblob in security_audit_rule_match() and > > security_inode_getsecid(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> > > Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> > > --- > > kernel/audit.h | 2 +- > > kernel/auditsc.c | 22 ++++++++-------------- > > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) ... > > diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c > > index 231631f61550..6fe9f2525fc1 100644 > > --- a/kernel/auditsc.c > > +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c > > @@ -700,17 +700,16 @@ static int audit_filter_rules(struct task_struct *tsk, > > * lsmblob, which happens later in > > * this patch set. > > */ > > - lsmblob_init(&blob, name->osid); > > result = security_audit_rule_match( > > - &blob, > > + &name->lsmblob, > > f->type, > > f->op, > > &f->lsm_rules); > > } else if (ctx) { > > list_for_each_entry(n, &ctx->names_list, list) { > > - lsmblob_init(&blob, n->osid); > > if (security_audit_rule_match( > > - &blob, f->type, f->op, > > + &n->lsmblob, > > + f->type, f->op, > > &f->lsm_rules)) { > > ++result; > > break; > > @@ -1589,13 +1588,12 @@ static void audit_log_name(struct audit_context *context, struct audit_names *n, > > from_kgid(&init_user_ns, n->gid), > > MAJOR(n->rdev), > > MINOR(n->rdev)); > > - if (n->osid != 0) { > > - struct lsmblob blob; > > + if (lsmblob_is_set(&n->lsmblob)) { > > struct lsmcontext lsmctx; > > > > - lsmblob_init(&blob, n->osid); > > - if (security_secid_to_secctx(&blob, &lsmctx, LSMBLOB_FIRST)) { > > - audit_log_format(ab, " osid=%u", n->osid); > > + if (security_secid_to_secctx(&n->lsmblob, &lsmctx, > > + LSMBLOB_FIRST)) { > > + audit_log_format(ab, " osid=?"); > > is there something better we can do here? This feels like a regression Unfortunately no, or at least nothing has been suggested that is an improvement on this approach. We could overload the existing field, but that runs the risk of confusing userspace tooling and potentially bumping into the buffer limit in some more complex configurations. The "?" value was chosen as it is a commonly accepted way for the audit subsystem to indicate that a value is "missing" and in the case of new/updated userspace tooling this would be an indication to look for the new record type which provides all of the necessary LSM labels. In the case of old/unaware userspace tooling it would serve as a graceful indicator that something is awry, i.e. you are using new kernel functionality without updating your userspace. -- paul-moore.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> To: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> Cc: selinux@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, casey.schaufler@intel.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v35 22/29] Audit: Keep multiple LSM data in audit_names Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:57:55 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRhDGMUH-WfyoMDLdDFWbzTcDGhKFZNB22-Ha3dhUKyCQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <c196795a-910a-1e70-4809-c96717767e39@canonical.com> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 7:32 PM John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote: > On 4/18/22 07:59, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > Replace the osid field in the audit_names structure > > with a lsmblob structure. This accomodates the use > > of an lsmblob in security_audit_rule_match() and > > security_inode_getsecid(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> > > Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> > > --- > > kernel/audit.h | 2 +- > > kernel/auditsc.c | 22 ++++++++-------------- > > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) ... > > diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c > > index 231631f61550..6fe9f2525fc1 100644 > > --- a/kernel/auditsc.c > > +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c > > @@ -700,17 +700,16 @@ static int audit_filter_rules(struct task_struct *tsk, > > * lsmblob, which happens later in > > * this patch set. > > */ > > - lsmblob_init(&blob, name->osid); > > result = security_audit_rule_match( > > - &blob, > > + &name->lsmblob, > > f->type, > > f->op, > > &f->lsm_rules); > > } else if (ctx) { > > list_for_each_entry(n, &ctx->names_list, list) { > > - lsmblob_init(&blob, n->osid); > > if (security_audit_rule_match( > > - &blob, f->type, f->op, > > + &n->lsmblob, > > + f->type, f->op, > > &f->lsm_rules)) { > > ++result; > > break; > > @@ -1589,13 +1588,12 @@ static void audit_log_name(struct audit_context *context, struct audit_names *n, > > from_kgid(&init_user_ns, n->gid), > > MAJOR(n->rdev), > > MINOR(n->rdev)); > > - if (n->osid != 0) { > > - struct lsmblob blob; > > + if (lsmblob_is_set(&n->lsmblob)) { > > struct lsmcontext lsmctx; > > > > - lsmblob_init(&blob, n->osid); > > - if (security_secid_to_secctx(&blob, &lsmctx, LSMBLOB_FIRST)) { > > - audit_log_format(ab, " osid=%u", n->osid); > > + if (security_secid_to_secctx(&n->lsmblob, &lsmctx, > > + LSMBLOB_FIRST)) { > > + audit_log_format(ab, " osid=?"); > > is there something better we can do here? This feels like a regression Unfortunately no, or at least nothing has been suggested that is an improvement on this approach. We could overload the existing field, but that runs the risk of confusing userspace tooling and potentially bumping into the buffer limit in some more complex configurations. The "?" value was chosen as it is a commonly accepted way for the audit subsystem to indicate that a value is "missing" and in the case of new/updated userspace tooling this would be an indication to look for the new record type which provides all of the necessary LSM labels. In the case of old/unaware userspace tooling it would serve as a graceful indicator that something is awry, i.e. you are using new kernel functionality without updating your userspace. -- 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:[~2022-04-26 17:58 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 132+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <20220418145945.38797-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com> 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 00/29] LSM: Module stacking for AppArmor Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 01/29] integrity: disassociate ima_filter_rule from security_audit_rule Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-21 16:51 ` John Johansen 2022-04-21 16:51 ` John Johansen 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 02/29] LSM: Infrastructure management of the sock security Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 03/29] LSM: Add the lsmblob data structure Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-26 23:15 ` John Johansen 2022-04-26 23:15 ` John Johansen 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 04/29] LSM: provide lsm name and id slot mappings Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-21 16:50 ` John Johansen 2022-04-21 16:50 ` John Johansen 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 05/29] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-19 16:50 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-20 19:23 ` Mimi Zohar 2022-04-20 21:15 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-21 3:22 ` Mimi Zohar 2022-04-21 16:50 ` John Johansen 2022-04-21 16:50 ` John Johansen 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 06/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_audit_rule_match Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-21 16:49 ` John Johansen 2022-04-21 16:49 ` John Johansen 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 07/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_kernel_act_as Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 08/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secctx_to_secid Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-27 0:38 ` John Johansen 2022-04-27 0:38 ` John Johansen 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 09/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 10/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_ipc_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 11/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_current_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 12/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_inode_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 13/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_cred_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 18:02 ` kernel test robot 2022-04-18 18:02 ` kernel test robot 2022-04-19 0:41 ` kernel test robot 2022-04-19 0:41 ` kernel test robot 2022-04-19 0:51 ` kernel test robot 2022-04-19 0:51 ` kernel test robot 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 14/29] LSM: Specify which LSM to display Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 15/29] LSM: Ensure the correct LSM context releaser Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 16/29] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 17/29] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_inode_getsecctx Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 18/29] LSM: security_secid_to_secctx in netlink netfilter Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 19/29] NET: Store LSM netlabel data in a lsmblob Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 20/29] binder: Pass LSM identifier for confirmation Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 21/29] LSM: Extend security_secid_to_secctx to include module selection Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-25 23:32 ` John Johansen 2022-04-25 23:32 ` John Johansen 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 22/29] Audit: Keep multiple LSM data in audit_names Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-25 23:32 ` John Johansen 2022-04-25 23:32 ` John Johansen 2022-04-26 17:57 ` Paul Moore [this message] 2022-04-26 17:57 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 23/29] Audit: Create audit_stamp structure Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-25 23:31 ` John Johansen 2022-04-25 23:31 ` John Johansen 2022-04-26 18:03 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-26 18:03 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-26 18:58 ` John Johansen 2022-04-26 18:58 ` John Johansen 2022-04-26 19:18 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-26 19:18 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-27 15:49 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-27 15:49 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-27 16:02 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-27 16:02 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-27 20:55 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-27 20:55 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 24/29] LSM: Add a function to report multiple LSMs Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-22 16:26 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-22 16:26 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-25 23:33 ` John Johansen 2022-04-25 23:33 ` John Johansen 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 25/29] Audit: Allow multiple records in an audit_buffer Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-22 16:27 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-22 16:27 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-26 1:06 ` John Johansen 2022-04-26 1:06 ` John Johansen 2022-04-26 18:12 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-26 18:12 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-26 19:01 ` John Johansen 2022-04-26 19:01 ` John Johansen 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 26/29] Audit: Add record for multiple task security contexts Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-22 16:28 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-22 16:28 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-26 1:08 ` John Johansen 2022-04-26 1:08 ` John Johansen 2022-04-26 18:15 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-26 18:15 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-26 19:07 ` John Johansen 2022-04-26 19:07 ` John Johansen 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 27/29] Audit: Add record for multiple object contexts Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-22 16:29 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-22 16:29 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-26 3:37 ` John Johansen 2022-04-26 3:37 ` John Johansen 2022-04-26 18:57 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-26 18:57 ` Paul Moore 2022-04-26 19:24 ` John Johansen 2022-04-26 19:24 ` John Johansen 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 28/29] LSM: Add /proc attr entry for full LSM context Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-04-22 8:37 ` John Johansen 2022-04-22 8:37 ` John Johansen 2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 29/29] AppArmor: Remove the exclusive flag Casey Schaufler 2022-04-18 14:59 ` 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=CAHC9VhRhDGMUH-WfyoMDLdDFWbzTcDGhKFZNB22-Ha3dhUKyCQ@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=selinux@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com \ /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.