linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH -v2] Smack: Integrate with Audit

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:23:29 -0400
From:	Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@...com>
To:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc:	casey@...aufler-ca.com, "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM-ML <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	Audit-ML <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
	Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -v2] Smack: Integrate with Audit

Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 08:40 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> --- Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 04:44 +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
>>>> Hi!,
>>>>
>>>> Setup the new Audit hooks for Smack. The AUDIT_SUBJ_USER and 
>>>> AUDIT_OBJ_USER SELinux flags are recycled to avoid `auditd' 
>>>> userspace modifications. Smack only needs auditing on 
>>>> a subject/object bases, so those flags were enough.
>>> Only question I have is whether audit folks are ok with reuse of the
>>> flags in this manner, and whether the _USER flag is best suited for this
>>> purpose if you are going to reuse an existing flag (since Smack label
>>> seems more like a SELinux type than a SELinux user).
>> To-mate-o toe-maht-o.
>>
>> There really doesn't seem to be any real reason to create a new
>> flag just because the granularity is different. The choice between
>> _USER and _TYPE (and _ROLE for that matter) is arbitrary from a
>> functional point of view. I say that since Smack has users, but
>> not types or roles, _USER makes the most sense.
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstand, but Smack labels don't represent users (i.e.
> user identity) in any way, so it seemed like a mismatch to use the _USER
> flag there.  Whereas types in SELinux bear some similarity to Smack
> labels - simple unstructured names whose meaning is only defined by the
> policy rules.
> 
> Regardless, it seems like the audit maintainers ought to weigh in on the
> matter.

I don't count as an audit maintainer but I think as long as the
man page is updated to say something other than:

subj_user
    Program's SE Linux User

then its fine for multiple LSMs to use the same rule flags and its
better than inventing new ones for each LSM.  I don't have an opinion
on which flag that's currently specific to SELinux should be recycled
but I think the manpage could be made more generic for all of them.

>>> Certainly will confuse matters if a user has audit filters on SELinux
>>> users in their /etc/audit/audit.rules and then boots a kernel with Smack
>>> enabled.
>> Somehow I doubt that will be their biggest concern.

I agree.

-- ljk
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/