1:07 p.m.
On Monday, April 16, 2018 10:11:01 AM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 2018-04-16 09:26, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> 2018-04-10 1:34 GMT+02:00 Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com>:
> > There were two formats of the audit MAC_STATUS record, one of which was
> > more standard than the other. One listed enforcing status changes and
> > the other listed enabled status changes with a non-standard label. In
> > addition, the record was missing information about which LSM was
> > responsible and the operation's completion status. While this record
> > is
> > only issued on success, the parser expects the res= field to be
> > present.
> >
> > old enforcing/permissive:
> > type=MAC_STATUS msg=audit(1523312831.378:24514): enforcing=0
> > old_enforcing=1 auid=0 ses=1 old enable/disable:
> > type=MAC_STATUS msg=audit(1523312831.378:24514): selinux=0 auid=0 ses=1
> >
> > List both sets of status and old values and add the lsm= field and the
> > res= field.
> >
> > Here is the new format:
> > type=MAC_STATUS msg=audit(1523293828.657:891): enforcing=0
> > old_enforcing=1 auid=0 ses=1 enabled=1 old-enabled=1 lsm=selinux res=1
> >
> > This record already accompanied a SYSCALL record.
> >
> > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/46
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com>
> > ---
> >
> > security/selinux/selinuxfs.c | 11 +++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
> > b/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
> > index 00eed84..00b21b2 100644
> > --- a/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
> > +++ b/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
> > @@ -145,10 +145,11 @@ static ssize_t sel_write_enforce(struct file
> > *file, const char __user *buf,> >
> > if (length)
> >
> > goto out;
> >
> > audit_log(current->audit_context, GFP_KERNEL,
> > AUDIT_MAC_STATUS,
> >
> > - "enforcing=%d old_enforcing=%d auid=%u
ses=%u",
> > + "enforcing=%d old_enforcing=%d auid=%u
ses=%u"
> > + " enabled=%d old-enabled=%d lsm=selinux
res=1",
>
> This is just a tiny nit but why does "old_enforcing" use an underscore
> and "old-enabled" a dash? Shouldn't the style be consistent across
> fields?
Well, we have this thing called the field dictionary:
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-documentation/blob/master/specs/fields/
field-dictionary.csv
If a field exists, we should reuse it and follow the exact formatting for the
value side. In this case, old_enforcing is in the dictionary. So, it should
be used.
Yes, but my understanding is a preference for underscore, and not to
change existing field names.
Steve?
When you are gluing 2 words together, I prefer a dash. But, in this case we
alreday have precedent that the field name exists, so we should reuse it.
-Steve
> Just my two cents...
These details are worth noticing, thank you.
> > new_value, selinux_enforcing,
> > from_kuid(&init_user_ns,
> > audit_get_loginuid(current)),
> >
> > - audit_get_sessionid(current));
> > + audit_get_sessionid(current), selinux_enabled,
> > selinux_enabled);> >
> > selinux_enforcing = new_value;
> > if (selinux_enforcing)
> >
> > avc_ss_reset(0);
> >
> > @@ -272,9 +273,11 @@ static ssize_t sel_write_disable(struct file
> > *file, const char __user *buf,> >
> > if (length)
> >
> > goto out;
> >
> > audit_log(current->audit_context, GFP_KERNEL,
> > AUDIT_MAC_STATUS,
> >
> > - "selinux=0 auid=%u ses=%u",
> > + "enforcing=%d old_enforcing=%d auid=%u
ses=%u"
> > + " enabled=%d old-enabled=%d lsm=selinux
res=1",
> > + selinux_enforcing, selinux_enforcing,
>
> ^ also here
>
> > from_kuid(&init_user_ns,
> > audit_get_loginuid(current)),
> >
> > - audit_get_sessionid(current));
> > + audit_get_sessionid(current), 0, 1);
> >
> > }
> >
> > length = count;
>
> Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com>
- RGB
--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com>
Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635
--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit