Re: AUDIT_NETFILTER_PKT message format
On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 7:32:40 AM EST Paul Moore wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Richard Guy Briggs
<rgb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2017-01-17 21:34, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
>> On 2017-01-17 15:17, Paul Moore wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>> > > On 2017-01-17 08:55, Steve Grubb wrote:
>> > >> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 12:25:51 AM EST Richard Guy Briggs
wrote:
>> > ...
>> >
>> > >> > Ones that are not so straightforward:
>> > >> > - "secmark" depends on a kernel config setting, so
should it
>> > >> > always be
>> > >> >
>> > >> > present but "(none)" if that kernel feature is
compiled out?
>> > >>
>> > >> If this is selinux related, I'd treat it the same way that we
do
>> > >> subj
>> > >> everywhere else.
>> > >
>> > > Ok.
>> >
>> > To be clear, a packet's secmark should be recorded via a dedicated
>> > field, e.g. "secmark", and not use the "subj" field (it
isn't a
>> > subject label in the traditional sense).
>>
>> I think Steve was talking about if, when or where to include that field,
>> not what its label is.
>
> In this case it is an "obj=" field, but since it is part of the LSM,
> each one has its own fields.
As I said above, use a "secmark" field and not the subject or object
fields; packet labeling is rather complex and there is value in
differentiating between secmark labels and network peer labels.
As Richard said, I was talking about when to include it, not what to include.
Context labels go through this test to check if there is a secid and log
context information if its there. This keeps the logs self consistent if a MAC
framework is compiled in or not.
-Steve