On 2023/08/16 22:53, Paul Moore wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 6:10 AM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel(a)i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> On 2023/08/16 3:44, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 6:58 AM Tetsuo Handa
>> <penguin-kernel(a)i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>> When an unexpected system event occurs, the administrator may want to
>>> identify which application triggered the event. For example, unexpected
>>> process termination is still a real concern enough to write articles
>>> like
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/165993 .
>>>
>>> This patch adds a record which emits TOMOYO-like task history information
>>> into the audit logs for better understanding of unexpected system events.
>>>
>>> type=UNKNOWN[1340] msg=audit(1691750738.271:108):
history="name=swapper/0;pid=1;start=20230811194329=>name=init;pid=1;start=20230811194343=>name=systemd;pid=1;start=20230811194439=>name=sshd;pid=3660;start=20230811104504=>name=sshd;pid=3767;start=20230811104535"
>>
>> While I respect your persistence, we've talked about this quite a bit
>> already in other threads. What you are trying to do is already
>> possible with audit
>
> How?
If you configure audit to record exec() and friends you should have a
proper history of the processes started on the system.
That is a "No LSM modules other than SELinux is needed because SELinux can do
everything" assertion. People propose different approaches/implementations because
they can't afford utilizing/configuring existing approaches/implementations.
Your assertion is a fatal problem for merging "Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] LSM: Three basic
syscalls"
at
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHC9VhQ4ttkSLTBCrXNZSBR1FP9UZ_gUHmo0BS37LCdyBm...
.
Please please allow LSM modules like
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/41d03271-ff8a-9888-11de-a7f53da47328@I-love.SAK...
to obtain a stable LSM ID if you don't want to support something that possibly have an
alternative.