Re: [PATCH ghak120] audit: trigger accompanying records when no rules present

On 2020-03-09 19:55, Paul Moore wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 4:31 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On 2020-02-27 20:02, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 4:01 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > > When there are no audit rules registered, mandatory records (config, > > > > etc.) are missing their accompanying records (syscall, proctitle, etc.). > > > > > > > > This is due to audit context dummy set on syscall entry based on absence > > > > of rules that signals that no other records are to be printed. > > > > > > > > Clear the dummy bit in auditsc_set_stamp() when the first record of an > > > > event is generated. > > > > > > > > Please see upstream github issue > > > > https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/120 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > --- > > > > kernel/auditsc.c | 2 ++ > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c > > > > index 4effe01ebbe2..31195d122344 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/auditsc.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c > > > > @@ -2176,6 +2176,8 @@ int auditsc_get_stamp(struct audit_context *ctx, > > > > t->tv_sec = ctx->ctime.tv_sec; > > > > t->tv_nsec = ctx->ctime.tv_nsec; > > > > *serial = ctx->serial; > > > > + if (ctx->dummy) > > > > + ctx->dummy = 0; > > > > > > Two comments: > > > > > > * Why even bother checking to see if ctx->dummy is true? If it is > > > true you set it to false/0; if it is already false you leave it alone. > > > Either way ctx->dummy is going to be set to false when you are past > > > these two lines, might as well just always set ctx->dummy to false/0. > > > > Ok, no problem. > > > > > * Why are you setting ->dummy to false in auditsc_get_stamp() and not > > > someplace a bit more obvious like audit_log_start()? Is it because > > > auditsc_get_stamp() only gets called once per event? I'm willing to > > > take the "hit" of one extra assignment in audit_log_start() to keep > > > this in a more obvious place and not buried in auditsc_get_stamp(). > > > > It is because the context is only available when syscall logging is > > enabled (which is on most platforms and hopefully eventually all) and > > makes for cleaner code and lack of need to check existance of the > > context. > > At the very least let's create some sort of accessor function for > dummy then, hiding this in auditsc_get_stamp() seems very wrong to me. Ok. Anything else?