[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080314182927.GQ20815@postel.suug.ch>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:29:27 +0100
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Audit vs netlink interaction problem
* Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org> 2008-03-14 20:05
> Hmmm... I'm afraid, that this can break the audit filtering and signal
> auditing. I haven't yet looked deep into it, but it compares the
> task->tgid with this audit_pid for different purposes. If audit_pid
> changes this code will be broken.
OK, then both pids have to be stored. audit_pid remains as-is but is
no longer used as destination netlink pid. A second pid is stored and
updated whenever a netlink message is received from userspace.
> Bu we have no the netlink socket at the moment of setting the pid to
> check this. The audit_reveive_msg() call which does this set is received
> via another (pre-created global) socket.
I don't understand this. As far as I can read the code, a plain kernel
side netlink socket is created in audit_init(). But it doesn't matter,
as soon as we receive the first message from userspace, we know the
netlink source pid.
> I though, that proper behavior would be to split audit_pid, used for
> filtering from the audit_nlk_pid used for netlink communications.
Yes, exactly.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists