On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 02:31:16 -0400
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Audit link denied events were being unexpectedly produced in a
> disjoint way when audit was disabled, and when they were expected,
> there were duplicate PATH records. This patchset addresses both
> issues for symlinks and hardlinks.
>
> This was introduced with
> commit b24a30a7305418ff138ff51776fc555ec57c011a
> ("audit: fix event coverage of AUDIT_ANOM_LINK")
> commit a51d9eaa41866ab6b4b6ecad7b621f8b66ece0dc
> ("fs: add link restriction audit reporting")
>
> Here are the resulting events:
>
> symlink:
> type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(03/12/2018 02:21:49.578:310) :
> proctitle=ls ./my-passwd type=PATH msg=audit(03/12/2018
> 02:21:49.578:310) : item=1 name=/tmp/ inode=13529 dev=00:27
> mode=dir,sticky,777 ouid=root ogid=root rdev=00:00
> obj=system_u:object_r:tmp_t:s0 nametype=PARENT cap_fp=none
> cap_fi=none cap_fe=0 cap_fver=0 type=PATH msg=audit(03/12/2018
> 02:21:49.578:310) : item=0 name=./my-passwd inode=17090 dev=00:27
> mode=link,777 ouid=rgb ogid=rgb rdev=00:00
> obj=unconfined_u:object_r:user_tmp_t:s0 nametype=NORMAL cap_fp=none
> cap_fi=none cap_fe=0 cap_fver=0 type=CWD msg=audit(03/12/2018
> 02:21:49.578:310) : cwd=/tmp type=SYSCALL msg=audit(03/12/2018
> 02:21:49.578:310) : arch=x86_64 syscall=stat success=no
> exit=EACCES(Permission denied) a0=0x7ffd79950dda a1=0x563f658a03c8
> a2=0x563f658a03c8 a3=0x79950d00 items=2 ppid=552 pid=629 auid=root
> uid=root gid=root euid=root suid=root fsuid=root egid=root sgid=root
> fsgid=root tty=ttyS0 ses=1 comm=ls exe=/usr/bin/ls
> subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null)
> type=ANOM_LINK msg=audit(03/12/2018 02:21:49.578:310) :
> op=follow_link ppid=552 pid=629 auid=root uid=root gid=root euid=root
> suid=root fsuid=root egid=root sgid=root fsgid=root tty=ttyS0 ses=1
> comm=ls exe=/usr/bin/ls
So, if we now only emit the ANOM_LINK event when audit is enabled, we
should get rid of all the duplicate information in that record. The
SYSCALL record has all that information.
As discussed previously, I'm not going to merge any patches which
remove fields from existing records.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com