linux-kernel - Re: 3.6-rc4 audit_log_d

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]

Message-ID: <20120906164536.GB30220@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:45:36 -0400
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: 3.6-rc4 audit_log_d_path oops.

On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 09:32:49AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
 > > I just realised, the funny thing about this is that the machine running that test
 > > had selinux/audit disabled. And yet here we are, screwing around with audit buffers.
 > 
 > The intent was to have this message show up in dmesg even if auditd
 > wasn't running, and even if the specific process wasn't being
 > explicitly audited.
 > 
 > > Should there be a test on audit_enable=0 in audit_log_link_denied() ?
 > >
 > > I'm now curious how much more of the audit code is getting run through similar lack of tests
 > 
 > What is the condition in which audit_log_start fails?

in the case of that oops, given I had booted with audit=0, I suspect it was hitting the first check...

1157         if (audit_initialized != AUDIT_INITIALIZED)
1158                 return NULL;
 
	Dave

--
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/