Re: [PATCH] userspace: audit: ausearch doesn't return entries for AppArmor events that exist in the log

On 06/06/2014 02:10 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote: > [Added Eric to cc] You didn't actually add Eric to the Cc: Adding him. > > On 2014-06-06 13:46:48, Tyler Hicks wrote: >> On 2014-05-30 17:00:04, Steve Grubb wrote: >>> On Friday, May 30, 2014 10:16:44 PM Tyler Hicks wrote: >>>> On 2014-05-30 15:53:49, Steve Grubb wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 03:33:06 PM Tony Jones wrote: >>>>>> This patch came from our L3 department. AppArmor LSM is >>>>>> logging using the >>>>>> common_lsm_audit() call but the audit userspace parsing code >>>>>> expects to see >>>>>> an SELinux tclass field. This patch doesn't address the lack >>>>>> of support for >>>>>> AppArmor in "aureport --avc". Talking to Seth Arnold, >>>>>> Canonical apparently >>>>>> has patches for this; if this is true perhaps they can post for >>>>>> inclusion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Based-on-work-by: William Preston <wpreston(a)suse.com&gt; >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Jones <tonyj(a)suse.de&gt; >>>>> >>>>> I was looking at this patch and was wondering something. Does >>>>> AppArmor produce AUDIT_AVC events? >>>> >>>> It does. Here's an odd ball that I picked out of my audit log: >>> >>> Uh-oh. I gave out the 1500 - 1599 block of events to App Armor so >>> that this problem would never happen. >>> >>> libaudit.h: >>> #define AUDIT_FIRST_SELINUX 1400 >>> #define AUDIT_LAST_SELINUX 1499 >>> #define AUDIT_FIRST_APPARMOR 1500 >>> #define AUDIT_LAST_APPARMOR 1599 >> >> I wasn't involved with AppArmor when it was going through upstream >> acceptance reviews, but I've asked around to get the history. >> >> As Tony mentioned, AppArmor was originally using the 1500-1599 >> block. At some point (I couldn't find it in the list archives), it >> was said that AppArmor needs to use common_lsm_audit() which >> unconditionally uses AUDIT_AVC. > > I found the review that caused AppArmor to switch to the common LSM > audit function: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/9/232 > > That email is almost 5 years old and minds can change over that > time, but Eric seemed to be against adding new audit event types > for each LSM. Instead, he wanted a lsm=<LSM> pair to be included in > the message. > > AppArmor can accommodate either approach so I think Steve and Eric > ought to come to an agreement on what non-SELinux LSMs should do > when auditing. > > Tyler > > > > -- > Linux-audit mailing list > Linux-audit(a)redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit >