[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJhuuMsfeZtKoJ7ZWgRKgs5Fcp2GgO9+UaA5kMCk_H1qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:50:27 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
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 6, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> wrote:
> 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;
Ah-ha, okay. Yeah, I'm fine with the fix you had. If _start fails, just return.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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