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, stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v33 25/29] Audit: Allow multiple records in an audit_buffer Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 19:47:36 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTkXaJ6nsJU9hf9KO22bGSpyr8EeBQKef-f6jhy_6OEkA@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220310234632.16194-26-casey@schaufler-ca.com> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 6:59 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > > Replace the single skb pointer in an audit_buffer with > a list of skb pointers. Add the audit_stamp information > to the audit_buffer as there's no guarantee that there > will be an audit_context containing the stamp associated > with the event. At audit_log_end() time create auxiliary > records (none are currently defined) as have been added > to the list. > > Suggested-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> > --- > kernel/audit.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c > index f012c3786264..4713e66a12af 100644 > --- a/kernel/audit.c > +++ b/kernel/audit.c > @@ -197,8 +197,10 @@ static struct audit_ctl_mutex { > * to place it on a transmit queue. Multiple audit_buffers can be in > * use simultaneously. */ > struct audit_buffer { > - struct sk_buff *skb; /* formatted skb ready to send */ > + struct sk_buff *skb; /* the skb for audit_log functions */ > + struct sk_buff_head skb_list; /* formatted skbs, ready to send */ > struct audit_context *ctx; /* NULL or associated context */ > + struct audit_stamp stamp; /* audit stamp for these records */ > gfp_t gfp_mask; > }; > > @@ -1744,7 +1746,6 @@ static void audit_buffer_free(struct audit_buffer *ab) > if (!ab) > return; > > - kfree_skb(ab->skb); I like the safety in knowing that audit_buffer_free() would free the ab->skb memory, I'm not sure I want to get rid of that. With the understanding that ab->skb is always going to be present somewhere in ab->skb_list, any reason not to do something like this? while ((skb = skb_dequeue(&ab->skb_list))) kfree_skb(skb); > kmem_cache_free(audit_buffer_cache, ab); > } > > @@ -1760,11 +1761,15 @@ static struct audit_buffer *audit_buffer_alloc(struct audit_context *ctx, > ab->skb = nlmsg_new(AUDIT_BUFSIZ, gfp_mask); > if (!ab->skb) > goto err; > - if (!nlmsg_put(ab->skb, 0, 0, type, 0, 0)) > + if (!nlmsg_put(ab->skb, 0, 0, type, 0, 0)) { > + kfree_skb(ab->skb); > goto err; > + } Assuming we restore the audit_buffer_free() functionality as mentioned above, if we move the ab->skb_list init and enqueue calls before we attempt the nlmsg_put() we can drop the kfree_skb() call and just use the existing audit_buffer_free() call at the err target. > ab->ctx = ctx; > ab->gfp_mask = gfp_mask; > + skb_queue_head_init(&ab->skb_list); > + skb_queue_tail(&ab->skb_list, ab->skb); > > return ab; > -- 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v33 25/29] Audit: Allow multiple records in an audit_buffer Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 19:47:36 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTkXaJ6nsJU9hf9KO22bGSpyr8EeBQKef-f6jhy_6OEkA@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220310234632.16194-26-casey@schaufler-ca.com> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 6:59 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > > Replace the single skb pointer in an audit_buffer with > a list of skb pointers. Add the audit_stamp information > to the audit_buffer as there's no guarantee that there > will be an audit_context containing the stamp associated > with the event. At audit_log_end() time create auxiliary > records (none are currently defined) as have been added > to the list. > > Suggested-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> > --- > kernel/audit.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c > index f012c3786264..4713e66a12af 100644 > --- a/kernel/audit.c > +++ b/kernel/audit.c > @@ -197,8 +197,10 @@ static struct audit_ctl_mutex { > * to place it on a transmit queue. Multiple audit_buffers can be in > * use simultaneously. */ > struct audit_buffer { > - struct sk_buff *skb; /* formatted skb ready to send */ > + struct sk_buff *skb; /* the skb for audit_log functions */ > + struct sk_buff_head skb_list; /* formatted skbs, ready to send */ > struct audit_context *ctx; /* NULL or associated context */ > + struct audit_stamp stamp; /* audit stamp for these records */ > gfp_t gfp_mask; > }; > > @@ -1744,7 +1746,6 @@ static void audit_buffer_free(struct audit_buffer *ab) > if (!ab) > return; > > - kfree_skb(ab->skb); I like the safety in knowing that audit_buffer_free() would free the ab->skb memory, I'm not sure I want to get rid of that. With the understanding that ab->skb is always going to be present somewhere in ab->skb_list, any reason not to do something like this? while ((skb = skb_dequeue(&ab->skb_list))) kfree_skb(skb); > kmem_cache_free(audit_buffer_cache, ab); > } > > @@ -1760,11 +1761,15 @@ static struct audit_buffer *audit_buffer_alloc(struct audit_context *ctx, > ab->skb = nlmsg_new(AUDIT_BUFSIZ, gfp_mask); > if (!ab->skb) > goto err; > - if (!nlmsg_put(ab->skb, 0, 0, type, 0, 0)) > + if (!nlmsg_put(ab->skb, 0, 0, type, 0, 0)) { > + kfree_skb(ab->skb); > goto err; > + } Assuming we restore the audit_buffer_free() functionality as mentioned above, if we move the ab->skb_list init and enqueue calls before we attempt the nlmsg_put() we can drop the kfree_skb() call and just use the existing audit_buffer_free() call at the err target. > ab->ctx = ctx; > ab->gfp_mask = gfp_mask; > + skb_queue_head_init(&ab->skb_list); > + skb_queue_tail(&ab->skb_list, ab->skb); > > return ab; > -- 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:[~2022-03-15 23:47 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <20220310234632.16194-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com> 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 00/29] LSM: Module stacking for AppArmor Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 01/29] integrity: disassociate ima_filter_rule from security_audit_rule Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-11 10:48 ` kernel test robot 2022-03-11 10:48 ` kernel test robot 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 02/29] LSM: Infrastructure management of the sock security Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 03/29] LSM: Add the lsmblob data structure Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 04/29] LSM: provide lsm name and id slot mappings Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 05/29] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 06/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_audit_rule_match Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 07/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_kernel_act_as Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 08/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secctx_to_secid Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 09/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 10/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_ipc_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 11/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_current_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 12/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_inode_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 13/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_cred_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-11 7:52 ` kernel test robot 2022-03-11 7:52 ` kernel test robot 2022-03-11 9:16 ` kernel test robot 2022-03-11 9:16 ` kernel test robot 2022-03-12 4:50 ` kernel test robot 2022-03-12 4:50 ` kernel test robot 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 14/29] LSM: Specify which LSM to display Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 15/29] LSM: Ensure the correct LSM context releaser Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 16/29] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 17/29] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_inode_getsecctx Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 18/29] LSM: security_secid_to_secctx in netlink netfilter Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 19/29] NET: Store LSM netlabel data in a lsmblob Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 20/29] binder: Pass LSM identifier for confirmation Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 21/29] LSM: Extend security_secid_to_secctx to include module selection Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 22/29] Audit: Keep multiple LSM data in audit_names Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 23/29] Audit: Create audit_stamp structure Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 24/29] LSM: Add a function to report multiple LSMs Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 25/29] Audit: Allow multiple records in an audit_buffer Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-15 23:47 ` Paul Moore [this message] 2022-03-15 23:47 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-16 0:06 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-16 0:06 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 26/29] Audit: Add record for multiple task security contexts Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-15 23:47 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-15 23:47 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-16 0:17 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-16 0:17 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 27/29] Audit: Add record for multiple object " Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-15 23:47 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-15 23:47 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-16 0:23 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-16 0:23 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-16 1:08 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-16 1:08 ` Paul Moore 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 28/29] LSM: Add /proc attr entry for full LSM context Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` [PATCH v33 29/29] AppArmor: Remove the exclusive flag Casey Schaufler 2022-03-10 23:46 ` 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=CAHC9VhTkXaJ6nsJU9hf9KO22bGSpyr8EeBQKef-f6jhy_6OEkA@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.