Re: Clarification Around File System Auditing

[Amjad Gabbar <amjadgabbar11@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7987 bytes --]

Also, we would need to have a separate rule for open and openat family with
something like

-S open,openat -F dir=/etc -F perm=wa -k ETC_WATCH.

So 2 syscall rules instead of 1 watch rule but we replace -S all with
specific syscalls.

Or we could combine all these open,openat,write family syscalls into a
single syscall rule but with the permissions flag.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 3:29 PM Amjad Gabbar <amjadgabbar11@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yup....I was able to find the dummy check you are referring to and the
> audit_reset_context() that is called next(which immediately exits in case
> of dummy).
> Thanks for the help folks....have a much better understanding of how the
> audit context is allocated on enabling syscall auditing and the whole flow
> post that.
>
> Had just 1 question wrt watches. IIUC, for watch rules we evaluate all
> syscalls (Snippet from audit-userspace:
> https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/blob/1482cec74f2d9472f81dd4f0533484bd0c26decd/lib/libaudit.c#L805
> ).
> But based on the permissions in the rule, we evaluate if the syscall
> belongs to a specific Audit Class using audit_match_class() and only log if
> the syscalls match/ are part of the class. This also explains why I see
> audit_filter_rules() called for watches even if the syscall being performed
> is not at all related to file system auditing.
>
>
>    1. I was wondering why do we not automatically identify if the syscall
>    is of interest or not in audit_in_mask() itself based on the rule
>    permissions of the watch? In this way we would avoid the additional
>    overhead of each syscall going into audit_filter_rules() and then
>    evaluating on the AUDIT_PERM case as well.
>
>
> Currently a watch rule for "wa" permissions for /etc is similar to :
> -a always,exit -F arch=b64 -S all -F dir=/etc -F perm=wa -k ETC_WATCH
>
> We only log if the syscall is part of the WRITE and ATTR permissions set.
> Instead what I was suggesting was something like this:
>
> -a always,exit -F arch=b64 -S <all syscalls part of the write and attr
> classes> -F dir=/etc  -k ETC_WATCH
>
> Please correct me if my understanding in any of the above is incorrect.
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 3:54 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-02-17 16:50, Steve Grubb wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:55:58 PM EST Amjad Gabbar wrote:
>> > > Thanks for the reply.
>> > > I was trying to evaluate the same via Flamegraphs and what I noticed
>> was
>> > > that :
>> > >
>> > > 1. Despite deleting all rules (auditctl -D), there were still calls to
>> > > audit_filter_syscall() on each syscall. I assume this is because
>> syscall
>> > > auditing is enabled and despite no rules, there still will be some
>> > > performance impact and calls to syscall filtering functions on each
>> > > syscall.
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > > 2. For a single watch rule as well without any syscall rules, I could
>> see
>> > > calls to audit_filter_syscall() followed by audit_filter_rules() for
>> > > unrelated syscalls such as futex() and recvmsg() - not present in
>> > > include/asm-generic/audit_*.h
>> > > Why would these functions be called for a single watch rule for
>> syscalls
>> > > unrelated to the permissions?
>> >
>> > If auditing is enabled, it will go into the syscall filter for *any*
>> syscall.
>> > It will go into __audit_syscall_exit for every syscall. If there is an
>> audit
>> > context, it will go into audit_filter_syscall. The documentation in the
>> > comments above these functions is informative.
>> >
>> > My guess is that this code path might benefit from adding a list_empty
>> check.
>> > A long time ago, I think we kept a variable that denoted if there were
>> any
>> > rules and short-circuited if none.
>>
>> There is essentially an empty list check in __audit_syscall_exit() with
>> the dummy check, based on the number of syscall (or io_uring) rules in
>> place tracked in audit_n_rules.  Unfortunately, we can't bail from
>> __audit_syscall_entry() right after setting dummy because other
>> hardwired records can cancel the dummy flag.
>>
>> > -Steve
>> >
>> > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 8:29 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > Hello,
>> > > >
>> > > > On Monday, February 13, 2023 4:24:02 PM EST Amjad Gabbar wrote:
>> > > > > I wanted some help in better understanding the workflow of file
>> system
>> > > > > auditing(watch rules) vs Syscall Auditing(syscall rules). I know
>> in
>> > > >
>> > > > general
>> > > >
>> > > > > file system auditing does not have the same performance impact as
>> > > > > syscall
>> > > > > auditing, even though both make use of syscall exits for their
>> > > >
>> > > > evaluation.
>> > > >
>> > > > > From the manpage - "Unlike most syscall auditing rules, watches
>> do not
>> > > > > impact performance based on the number of rules sent to the
>> kernel."
>> > > > >
>> > > > > From a previous thread, I found this excerpt regarding file watch
>> rules
>> > > >
>> > > > vs
>> > > >
>> > > > > sycall rules -
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "The reason it doesn't have performance impact like normal syscall
>> > > > > rules
>> > > >
>> > > > is
>> > > >
>> > > > > because it gets moved to a list that is not evaluated every
>> syscall. A
>> > > > > normal syscall rule will get evaluated for every syscall because
>> it has
>> > > >
>> > > > to
>> > > >
>> > > > > see if the syscall number is of interest and then it checks the
>> next
>> > > > > rule."
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Based on this I had a couple of questions:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > For normal syscall rules, the evaluation happens as
>> > > > > __audit_syscall_exit
>> > > > > <
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1.10/C/ident/__audit_syscall_exit>
>> > > > > calls audit_filter_syscall
>> > > > > (
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1.10/source/kernel/auditsc.c#L841)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Here, we check if the syscall is of interest or not in the
>> > > > > audit_in_mask
>> > > > > <https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1.10/C/ident/audit_in_mask>
>> > > >
>> > > > function.
>> > > >
>> > > > > Only if the syscall is of interest do we proceed with examining
>> the
>> > > > > task
>> > > > > and return on the first rule match.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1. What is the process or code path for watch rules?
>> > > > > audit_filter_syscall
>> > > > > <
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1.10/C/ident/audit_filter_syscall>
>> > > >
>> > > > is
>> > > >
>> > > > > called for watch rules as well. Then how is it that these are not
>> > > > > called
>> > > > > for every syscall? Could you point me to the code where the
>> evaluation
>> > > > > happens only once?
>> > > >
>> > > > There is a file, kernel/audit_watch.c, that implements the interface
>> > > > between
>> > > > audit and fsnotify. You would want to learn how fsnotify works to
>> > > > understand
>> > > > how it avoids the syscall filter.
>> > > >
>> > > > > 2. Also, do file watches only involve the open system call family
>> > > > > (open,
>> > > > > openat etc). The man page implies the same, so just wanted to
>> confirm.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I assume -w /etc -p wa is the same as -a always,exit -S open -S
>> openat
>> > > > > -F
>> > > > > dir=/etc?
>> > > >
>> > > > It depends on the flag passed for perm as to what syscall it wants.
>> See:
>> > > >
>> > > > include/asm-generic/audit_*.h
>> > > >
>> > > > -Steve
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Linux-audit mailing list
>> > Linux-audit@redhat.com
>> > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
>> >
>>
>> - RGB
>>
>> --
>> Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
>> Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
>> Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
>> IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
>> Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635
>>
>>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 10846 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 107 bytes --]

--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit