linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 3/4] AUDIT: collect info when execve results in caps in pE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20081106195856.GA30017@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Nov 2008 13:58:56 -0600
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com,
	sgrubb@...hat.com, morgan@...nel.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 3/4] AUDIT: collect info when execve results in
	caps in pE

Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@...hat.com):
> So here's the problem....  I can't fail this syscall, it's too late.  I

Oh, right...

> can do a couple of things.
> 
> 1) waste lots of space in the execve record so we know memory has
> already been allocated
> 2) just ignore the memory failure and don't worry about it.  We are
> still going to get the fcaps info from the patch record and should be
> able to piece together the starting and finishing caps by looking at
> past audit records if you really need it.
> 3) I can call audit_log_lost().  I don't think we know are this time
> that we really needed this record, but this is the 'safest' approach.
> If people have their machines set to panic on lost records we would
> panic.   Honestly though, if we don't have enough memory to satisfy this
> request (we're talking about 72 bytes or something?) we are going to
> fail the next audit message, so doing it now would be just fine.
> 
> I vote #2 since I don't think we are really going to have any lose of
> info.  But if people want it I'll go #3 since I don't think it will hurt
> anything.

2 sounds reasonable to me.  Reckon sgrubb will speak up if it violates
some audit requirement.

thanks,
-serge
--
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/