linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>,
	Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH GHAK16 V5 00/10] capabilities: do not audit log BPRM_FCAPS on set*id
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:29:50 +1100 (AEDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1710201229350.11454@t440.gateway.2wire.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171019130809.2farwdz3uav6vlp3@madcap2.tricolour.ca>

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:

> On 2017-10-11 20:57, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > The audit subsystem is adding a BPRM_FCAPS record when auditing setuid
> > application execution (SYSCALL execve). This is not expected as it was
> > supposed to be limited to when the file system actually had capabilities
> > in an extended attribute.  It lists all capabilities making the event
> > really ugly to parse what is happening.  The PATH record correctly
> > records the setuid bit and owner.  Suppress the BPRM_FCAPS record on
> > set*id.
> 
> <crickets>
> 
> Serge?  James?  Can one of you two take this via your trees since Paul
> has backed down citing (reasonably) that it is mostly capabilities
> patches rather than audit?
> 

Sure, I will take it.


> > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/16
> > 
> > The first to eighth patches just massage the logic to make it easier to
> > understand.  Some of them could be squashed together.
> > 
> > The patch that resolves this issue is the ninth.  
> > 
> > It would be possible to address the original issue with a change of
> > 	"!uid_eq(new->euid, root_uid) || !uid_eq(new->uid, root_uid)"
> > to
> > 	"!(uid_eq(new->euid, root_uid) || uid_eq(new->uid, root_uid))"
> > but it took me long enough to understand this logic that I don't think
> > I'd be doing any favours by leaving it this difficult to understand.
> > 
> > The final patch attempts to address all the conditions that need logging
> > based on mailing list conversations, recoginizing there is probably some
> > duplication in the logic.
> > 
> > Passes: (ltp 20170516)
> > 	./runltp -f syscalls -s cap
> > 	./runltp -f securebits
> > 	./runltp -f cap_bounds
> > 	./runltp -f filecaps
> > 	make TARGETS=capabilities kselftest (when run locally, fails over nfs)
> > 
> > Since this is mostly capabilities related rather than audit, could this go
> > through the capabilites (Serge) or security (James) trees please?  Thanks!
> > 
> > v5
> >   rebase on linux-security/next 4.14-rc2
> >   added comment block header to handle_privileged_root()
> >   moved comment in handle_privileged_root()
> >   moved root_privileged() check back into handle_privileged_root()
> > 
> > v4
> >   rebase on kees' 4.13 commoncap changes
> >   minor local func renames
> > 
> > v3
> >   refactor into several sub-functions
> >   convert most macros to inline funcs
> > 
> > v2
> >   use macros to clarify intent of calculations
> >   fix original logic error
> >   address additional audit logging conditions
> > 
> > Richard Guy Briggs (10):
> >   capabilities: factor out cap_bprm_set_creds privileged root
> >   capabilities: intuitive names for cap gain status
> >   capabilities: rename has_cap to has_fcap
> >   capabilities: use root_priveleged inline to clarify logic
> >   capabilities: use intuitive names for id changes
> >   capabilities: move audit log decision to function
> >   capabilities: remove a layer of conditional logic
> >   capabilities: invert logic for clarity
> >   capabilities: fix logic for effective root or real root
> >   capabilities: audit log other surprising conditions
> > 
> >  security/commoncap.c | 193 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >  1 file changed, 128 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
> > 
> > -- 
> > 1.8.3.1
> > 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> - 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
> 

-- 
James Morris
<james.l.morris@oracle.com>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-10-20  1:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-12  0:57 [PATCH GHAK16 V5 00/10] capabilities: do not audit log BPRM_FCAPS on set*id Richard Guy Briggs
2017-10-12  0:57 ` [PATCH GHAK16 V5 01/10] capabilities: factor out cap_bprm_set_creds privileged root Richard Guy Briggs
2017-10-12  0:57 ` [PATCH GHAK16 V5 02/10] capabilities: intuitive names for cap gain status Richard Guy Briggs
2017-10-12  0:57 ` [PATCH GHAK16 V5 03/10] capabilities: rename has_cap to has_fcap Richard Guy Briggs
2017-10-12  0:57 ` [PATCH GHAK16 V5 04/10] capabilities: use root_priveleged inline to clarify logic Richard Guy Briggs
2017-10-12  0:57 ` [PATCH GHAK16 V5 05/10] capabilities: use intuitive names for id changes Richard Guy Briggs
2017-10-12  0:57 ` [PATCH GHAK16 V5 06/10] capabilities: move audit log decision to function Richard Guy Briggs
2017-10-12  0:57 ` [PATCH GHAK16 V5 07/10] capabilities: remove a layer of conditional logic Richard Guy Briggs
2017-10-12  0:57 ` [PATCH GHAK16 V5 08/10] capabilities: invert logic for clarity Richard Guy Briggs
2017-10-12  0:57 ` [PATCH GHAK16 V5 09/10] capabilities: fix logic for effective root or real root Richard Guy Briggs
2017-10-12  0:57 ` [PATCH GHAK16 V5 10/10] capabilities: audit log other surprising conditions Richard Guy Briggs
2017-10-19 13:08 ` [PATCH GHAK16 V5 00/10] capabilities: do not audit log BPRM_FCAPS on set*id Richard Guy Briggs
2017-10-20  1:29   ` James Morris [this message]
2017-10-20  2:34     ` Richard Guy Briggs
2017-10-20  5:15   ` James Morris

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=alpine.LFD.2.20.1710201229350.11454@t440.gateway.2wire.net \
    --to=james.l.morris@oracle.com \
    --cc=eparis@redhat.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=pmoore@redhat.com \
    --cc=rgb@redhat.com \
    --cc=serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com \
    --cc=sgrubb@redhat.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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).