4:03 p.m.
Manoj,
I would counsel against using auditd as your local logging repository in favour of
say syslog or journald or managed local files.
Where applications have used auditd for their log recording, I have seen - auditd is
already busy with the kernel space messages (consider execve monitoring on a process
execution heavy server) and the queueing of messages slows the application - should
you implement a queuing thread and the application queues a message but for one
reason or another the queue is lost you have failed to record the message by the
additional delay of the message residing in a queue for a long time (i.e. auditd is
busy with kernel events) - as Steve suggests, if your ICT security certification
process requires accurate/guaranteed event logs, and you queue the log, if you can't
write it out how do you prevent the user action. - applications do not use the
appropriate message format (e.g. the main content of your message is not in
<key>'='<value> format) resulting in the very erroneous processing of
auditd message
processing - you force any centralised logging capability to apply additional effort
do extract the application related logs from the kernel/system related logs.
Any or all of the above could prevent the use of your application in environments
with stringent ICT Security certification processes.
RegardsBurn Alting
On Wed, 2022-09-14 at 08:40 +0000, Manojkiran Eda wrote:
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the reply.
I am actually trying to enable audit events support for an embedded webserver
(bmcweb) which implements the DMTF Redfish specification.
The idea is to use libaudit to generate server operations related audit events.
For example
Authentication related eventsPower on related eventsCode update related events
And the design principle is that all the apps in LF
OpenBMC are single threaded & use dbus as our communication model & we use event
loops for processing events from dbus. I agree that probably it makes sense to
disallow a particular operation If we fail to send
an event. But can’t we do it without blocking using the event loops ? is there
some example of doing that for sending audit events ? As it is a webserver we
would want it to as much responsive as possible.
And also , how much time does the daemon have to wait for a ACK reply ? does it
have a time out of some sort ? I understand that the API that we discussed above
does the send as
well as receive part, are there specific API’s for just send & receive separately
? so that I could probably add the file descriptor to the event loop and invoke
the receive API whenever we get a reply ACK from the kernel.
Thank,
Manoj
From:
Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com>
Date: Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 10:55 PM
To: linux-audit(a)redhat.com <linux-audit(a)redhat.com>
Cc: ManojKiran Eda <manojkiran.eda(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Query regarding the lib audit-userspace
Hello,
On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 12:53:32 PM EDT Manojkiran Eda wrote:
> I was working on leveraging the libaudit shared library to generate audit
> events from a user space daemon. I have been using the audit_open as well
> as audit_log_acct_message() API’s to send message to the kernel audit
> subsystem.
audit_log_acct_message() is meant to send events related to a user's
account. For example, pam and shadow-utils uses it.
> From the man pages I understand that every message to the
> kernel audit subsystem would get an ACK back.
Yes. This is to let you know if there was a problem such as lack of
permissions.
> Now my question is does the daemon[single threaded] consuming this libaudit
> for sending events using audit_log_acct_message() API be blocked until it
> gets an ACK back from the kernel ?
Yes. In general, sending audit events should be rare.
> If yes , is there a way to not have the application blocked during this
> period ?
The requirements that we normally need to adhere to is that if the audit
event fails, then whatever the user was going to do needs to be prevented. If
you really need to keep moving, send the event on it's own thread so that
your application is not waiting. For example, sshd forks the user session so
that it can keep processing other logins. But on that fork, it waits for the
responses to make it easier to tear down the session if sending an audit
event fails.
Or, another approach would be to write the whole thing down to calling sendto
and then you can wait however you want. I think putting on it's own thread is
simplest. But as I said in the beginning, should there be a problem logging
the event, can you undo whatever the event was for if you keep going?
-Steve
--Linux-audit mailing listLinux-audit(a)redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit