Re: [userspace PATCH v2 0/2] Add support for loginuid_set

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:42:58 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 2:27:54 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote: >> >> On 2016-10-11 12:40, Steve Grubb wrote: >> >> > On Monday, October 10, 2016 5:10:39 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote: >> >> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com&gt; > > wrote: >> >> > > > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:18:55 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs > > wrote: >> >> > > >> loginuid_set support should have been added to userspace when >> >> > > >> it >> >> > > >> was >> >> > > >> added to the kernel around v3.10. Add it before we do similar >> >> > > >> for >> >> > > >> sessionID and sessionID_set. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > If this were accepted, how would this change writing rules? IOW, >> >> > > > can >> >> > > > you >> >> > > > give an example rule so we can see what this looks like? >> >> > > >> >> > > We have a RFE feature page which documents some rule examples: >> >> > > >> >> > > * >> >> > > https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/wiki/RFE-Session-ID-Us >> >> > > er-> >> > > Fil ter >> >> > >> >> > OK, thanks. This is helpful. So, what is the difference between >> >> > these >> >> > rules? >> >> > >> >> > -a always,exit -F path=/tmp/sessionid_test -F loginuid=-1 >> >> > >> >> > -a always,exit -F path=/tmp/sessionid_set_test -F loginuid_set=0 >> >> >> >> The only difference is one flag in the kernel to indicate how it was >> >> invoked to be able to report when queried exactly the same way it was >> >> invoked, but there is no difference in the actual behaviour of the >> >> filter. This was added because of your report that "f24=0" was >> >> reported >> >> instead of loginuid_set=0 for backwards compatibility. >> > >> > OK. Generally its bad to have 2 ways to do the same thing. People use >> > SCAP >> > content to check system configurations. If there's two ways to do the >> > same >> > thing, then someone can accidentally choose the wrong way and fail >> > their >> > scan. We run into this in the past where we allowed -a exit,always and >> > -a >> > always,exit. All the rules had to be reworked to be consistent. >> > Therefore, I would recommend not using the loginuid_set option. We >> > still >> > get questions about -w /path/file -p wa vs -a always,exit -F >> > path=/path/file -F perm=wa. But that one is so deeply embedded that it >> > should not be fixed. >> > >> >> Going forward, the implementation of the sessionid_set field (which >> >> works similarly) will not allow an unset value of sessionid since >> >> these >> >> are a new addition that didn't need to accomodate backward >> >> compatibility. >> > >> > As long as we can trigger on sessionid=-1, then we are fine. >> >> Wait a minute ... what happened to the loginuid_set patches? Didn't >> those get merged to userspace? > > I'm reviewing this patch set for merging now that we are past all the 2.6 > bug fixing. Ah, nevermind ... I confused loginuid and sessionid, sorry about the confusion. Anyway, I thought the desire for having a dedicated "is the loginuid value set?" filter came from userspace? If not, where did this requirement come from?