Re: [PATCH V5 0/5] audit by executable name
On Monday, October 20, 2014 07:02:33 PM Paul Moore wrote:
On Monday, October 20, 2014 06:47:27 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 16:25 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 02, 2014 11:06:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > This is a part of Peter Moody, my and Eric Paris' work to implement
> > > audit by executable name.
> >
> > Does this patch set define an AUDIT_VERSION_SOMETHING and then set
> > AUDIT_VERSION_LATEST to it? If not, I need one to tell if the kernel
> > supports it when issuing commands. Also, if its conceivable that kernels
> > may pick and choose what features could be backported to a curated
> > kernel, should AUDIT_VERSION_ be a number that is incremented or a bit
> > mask?
>
> Right now the value is 2. So this is your last hope if you want to make
> it a bitmask. I'll leave that up to paul/richard to (over) design.
Audit is nothing if not over-designed. I want to make sure we're consistent
with the previous design methodologies ;)
I've been thinking about this for about the past half-hour while I've been
going through some other mail and I'm not really enthused about using the
version number to encode capabilities. What sort of problems would we have
if we introduced a new audit netlink command to query the kernel for audit
capabilities?
I thought that is what we were getting in this patch:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2014-January/msg00054.html
As I understood it, I send an AUDIT_GET command on netlink and then look in
status.version to see what we have. I really think that in the mainline
kernel, there will be a steady increment of capabilities. However, for
distributions, they may want to pick and choose which capabilities to backport
to their shipping kernel. Meaning in practice, a bitmap may be better to allow
cherry picking capabilities and user space being able to make informed
decisions.
I really don't mind if this is done by a new netlink command (but if we do,
what happens to status.version?) or if we just keep going with status.version.
Just tell me which it is.
-Steve