lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH ghak25 v4 3/3] audit: add subj creds to NETFILTER_CFG record to cover async unregister
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:15 AM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2020-04-28 18:25, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 5:40 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Some table unregister actions seem to be initiated by the kernel to
> > > garbage collect unused tables that are not initiated by any userspace
> > > actions. It was found to be necessary to add the subject credentials to
> > > cover this case to reveal the source of these actions. A sample record:
> > >
> > > type=NETFILTER_CFG msg=audit(2020-03-11 21:25:21.491:269) : table=nat family=bridge entries=0 op=unregister pid=153 uid=root auid=unset tty=(none) ses=unset subj=system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 comm=kworker/u4:2 exe=(null)
> >
> > [I'm going to comment up here instead of in the code because it is a
> > bit easier for everyone to see what the actual impact might be on the
> > records.]
> >
> > Steve wants subject info in this case, okay, but let's try to trim out
> > some of the fields which simply don't make sense in this record; I'm
> > thinking of fields that are unset/empty in the kernel case and are
> > duplicates of other records in the userspace/syscall case. I think
> > that means we can drop "tty", "ses", "comm", and "exe" ... yes?
> >
> > While "auid" is a potential target for removal based on the
> > dup-or-unset criteria, I think it falls under Steve's request for
> > subject info here, even if it is garbage in this case.
>
> Can you explain why auid falls under this criteria but ses does not if
> both are unset?

"While "auid" is a potential target for removal based on the
dup-or-unset criteria, I think it falls under Steve's request for
subject info here, even if it is garbage in this case."

It's a concession to Steve. As I mentioned previously, I think the
subject info is bogus in this case; either it is valid and we get it
from the SYSCALL record or it simply isn't present in any meaningful
way.

--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-17 23:51    [W:0.146 / U:0.712 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site