[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48FF21BF.9090509@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:51:11 -0700
From: "Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
CC: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-audit@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, sgrubb@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] AUDIT: audit when fcaps increase the permitted or
inheritable capabilities
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
[s/viro@...ok/viro@...uk/]
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> 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.
>
> True.
>
> ... except if (!issecure(SECURE_NOROOT) && uid==0) I guess?
>
> And then it also might be interesting in the case where
> (!issecure(SECURE_NOROOT) && uid==0) and pP is not full.
I guess so, although this seems like a case of being interested in a
(unusual) non-privileged execve().
>>> 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?
>
> It might fail because fP contains bits not in pP', right? That's
> probably interesting to auditors.
In which case, how is the fact it didn't execute captured in the audit log?
Cheers
Andrew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFI/yG9+bHCR3gb8jsRAii1AKCDluqUSVyAKP67/9bhEgqdlx3xdACg0dn4
81bi/3eMaP1FqfdVK2u/BpM=
=QBli
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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