Re: [PATCH 3/4] AUDIT: audit when fcaps increase the permitted or inheritable capabilities
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Eric Paris wrote:
Any time fcaps are used to increase a processes pP or pE we will
crate a new
audit record which contains the entire set of known information about the
executable in question, fP, fI, fE, version and includes the parent processes
pE, pI, pP. This record type will only be emitted from execve syscalls.
I'm confused by the choice of when to log this event.
File capabilities are required to give a process 'any' active
capabilities. That is they don't affect pI -> pI', but without fI or fP,
the post-execve() process is guaranteed to have no pP or pE capabilities.
Logging execve()s where there is only an increase in capabilities seems
wrong to me. To me it seems equally important to log any event where an
execve() yields pP != 0.
diff --git a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c
index 888b292..9bb285d 100644
--- a/security/commoncap.c
+++ b/security/commoncap.c
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
*/
#include <linux/capability.h>
+#include <linux/audit.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
@@ -320,6 +321,8 @@ static int get_file_caps(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
rc = bprm_caps_from_vfs_caps(&vcaps, bprm);
+ audit_log_bprm_fcaps(bprm, &vcaps);
+
When rc != 0, the execve() will fail. Is it appropriate to log in this case?
Cheers
Andrew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFI/W5F+bHCR3gb8jsRAhM9AJ9oJL4PmdtMwHEkN0Xh0ZTHBlJPzgCfVT/8
1Rq4wgGWftqpaVXBmeAsEi8=
=W8R9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----