Hello,
On Friday, November 22, 2019 4:19:55 PM EST Paul Moore wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 2:24 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Paul,
> would following output be ok:
>
> type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1574445211.897:28015): arch=c000003e syscall=321
> success=no exit=-13 a0=5 a1=7fff09ac6c60 a2=78 a3=6 items=0 ppid=1408
> pid=9266 auid=1001 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0
> fsgid=0 tty=pts0 ses=1 comm="test_verifier"
> exe="/home/jolsa/linux/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier"
> subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
> key=(null)ARCH=x86_64 SYSCALL=bpf AUID="jolsa" UID="root"
GID="root"
> EUID="root" SUID="root" FSUID="root"
EGID="root" SGID="root"
> FSGID="root" type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(1574445211.897:28015):
> proctitle="./test_verifier" type=BPF msg=audit(1574445211.897:28016):
> prog-id=8103 event=LOAD
>
> type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1574445211.897:28016): arch=c000003e syscall=321
> success=yes exit=14 a0=5 a1=7fff09ac6b80 a2=78 a3=0 items=0 ppid=1408
> pid=9266 auid=1001 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0
> fsgid=0 tty=pts0 ses=1 comm="test_verifier"
> exe="/home/jolsa/linux/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier"
> subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
> key=(null)ARCH=x86_64 SYSCALL=bpf AUID="jolsa" UID="root"
GID="root"
> EUID="root" SUID="root" FSUID="root"
EGID="root" SGID="root"
> FSGID="root" type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(1574445211.897:28016):
> proctitle="./test_verifier" type=BPF msg=audit(1574445211.897:28017):
> prog-id=8103 event=UNLOAD
There is some precedence in using "op=" instead of "event=" (an
audit
"event" is already a thing, using "event=" here might get
confusing).
I suppose if we are getting really nit-picky you might want to
lower-case the LOAD/UNLOAD, but generally Steve cares more about these
things than I do.
For reference, we have a searchable database of fields here:
*
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-documentation/blob/master/specs/field
s/field-dictionary.csv
Paul's comments are correct. We generally use op for what operation is being
performed. This approach looks better. This is fitting in with the audit way
of doing things. I don't think there would be any user space issues adding
support for the BPF record.
-Steve