On 10/09/2015 12:25 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Friday, October 09, 2015 10:57:44 AM Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 10/07/2015 07:08 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> The kdbus service names will be recorded using 'service', similar to
>> the existing dbus audit records.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <pmoore(a)redhat.com>
>>
>> ---
>> ChangeLog:
>> - v3
>>
>> * Ported to the 4.3-rc4 based kdbus tree
>>
>> - v2
>>
>> * Initial draft
>>
>> ---
>>
>> include/linux/lsm_audit.h | 2 ++
>> security/lsm_audit.c | 4 ++++
>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_audit.h b/include/linux/lsm_audit.h
>> index ffb9c9d..d6a656f 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/lsm_audit.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_audit.h
>> @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ struct common_audit_data {
>>
>> #define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_INODE 9
>> #define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_DENTRY 10
>> #define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_IOCTL_OP 11
>>
>> +#define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_KDBUS 12
>>
>> union {
>>
>> struct path path;
>> struct dentry *dentry;
>>
>> @@ -75,6 +76,7 @@ struct common_audit_data {
>>
>> #endif
>>
>> char *kmod_name;
>> struct lsm_ioctlop_audit *op;
>>
>> + const char *kdbus_name;
>>
>> } u;
>> /* this union contains LSM specific data */
>> union {
>>
>> diff --git a/security/lsm_audit.c b/security/lsm_audit.c
>> index cccbf30..0a3dc1b 100644
>> --- a/security/lsm_audit.c
>> +++ b/security/lsm_audit.c
>> @@ -397,6 +397,10 @@ static void dump_common_audit_data(struct
>> audit_buffer *ab,>
>> audit_log_format(ab, " kmod=");
>> audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, a->u.kmod_name);
>> break;
>>
>> + case LSM_AUDIT_DATA_KDBUS:
>> + audit_log_format(ab, " service=");
>
> Not a major issue to me, but just wondering if this needs to be further
> qualified to indicate it is a kdbus service. service= is rather generic.
>From the audit perspective, its fine as service. Too many names that mean the
same thing causes string lookup tables to get big. Service is what dbus is
currently using. So, it makes sense to re-use the field name. If the selinux
tooling wants to know an AVC originated from kdbus activity, then maybe
another name=value should be added.
Ok, never mind then - just leave it as is.