I have done some testing with this patch, we have some testsuites to
verify the
function of audit, and i will test it with the audit-testsuite.
Thanks.
Gaosheng
在 2021/10/14 5:15, Paul Moore 写道:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 5:10 AM Gaosheng Cui
<cuigaosheng1(a)huawei.com> wrote:
> It is not necessary for audit_filter_rules() functions to check
> audit fileds of the rule with a lower priority, and if we did,
> there might be some unintended effects, such as the ctx->ppid
> may be changed unexpectedly, so return early if the rule has
> a lower priority.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1(a)huawei.com>
> ---
> kernel/auditsc.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Thanks for this patch, it looks reasonable to me but have you done any
testing with this patch? If so, what have you done?
As a FYI, the audit-testsuite project lives here:
*
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-testsuite
> diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c
> index 42d4a4320526..b517947bfa48 100644
> --- a/kernel/auditsc.c
> +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c
> @@ -470,6 +470,9 @@ static int audit_filter_rules(struct task_struct *tsk,
> u32 sid;
> unsigned int sessionid;
>
> + if (ctx && rule->prio <= ctx->prio)
> + return 0;
> +
> cred = rcu_dereference_check(tsk->cred, tsk == current ||
task_creation);
>
> for (i = 0; i < rule->field_count; i++) {
> @@ -737,8 +740,6 @@ static int audit_filter_rules(struct task_struct *tsk,
> }
>
> if (ctx) {
> - if (rule->prio <= ctx->prio)
> - return 0;
> if (rule->filterkey) {
> kfree(ctx->filterkey);
> ctx->filterkey = kstrdup(rule->filterkey,
GFP_ATOMIC);
> --
> 2.30.0