[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1808201721350.1551@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 17:21:57 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
cc: linux-audit@...hat.com, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>,
Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH ghak10 v4 0/2] audit: Log modifying adjtimex(2)
calls
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
+ Miroslav Lichvar
> Hi,
>
> this patchset implements more detailed auditing of the adjtimex(2)
> syscall in order to make it possible to:
> a) distinguish modifying vs. read-only calls in the audit log
> b) reconstruct from the audit log what changes were made and how they
> have influenced the system clock
>
> The main motivation is to be able to detect an adversary that tries to
> confuse the audit timestamps by changing system time via adjtimex(2),
> but at the same time avoid flooding the audit log with records of benign
> read-only adjtimex(2) calls.
>
> @John or other timekeeping/NTP folks: We had a discussion on the audit
> ML on which of the internal timekeeping/NTP variables we should actually
> log changes for. We are only interested in variables that can (directly
> or indirectly) cause noticeable changes to the system clock, but since we
> have only limited understanding of the NTP code, we would like to ask
> you for advice on which variables are security relevant.
>
> Right now, the patchset is conservative and logs all changes that can be
> done via adjtimex(2):
> - direct injection of timekeeping offset (obviously relevant)
> - adjustment of timekeeping's TAI offset
> - NTP value adjustments:
> - time_offset (probably important)
> - time_freq (maybe not important?)
> - time_status (likely important, can cause leap second injection)
> - time_maxerror (maybe not important?)
> - time_esterror (maybe not important?)
> - time_constant (???)
> - time_adjust (sounds important)
> - tick_usec (???)
>
> Could you please give us some hints on the effect of changing these
> variables and whether you think that it is important to log their
> changes?
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
>
> GitHub issue: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/10
>
> Changes in v4:
> - Squashed first two patches into one
> - Rename ADJNTPVAL's "type" field to "op" to align with audit record
> conventions
> - Minor commit message editing
> - Cc timekeeping/NTP people for feedback
>
> v3: https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2018-July/msg00001.html
> Changes in v3:
> - Switched to separate records for each variable
> - Both old and new value is now reported for each change
> - Injecting offset is reported via a separate record (since this
> offset consists of two values and is added directly to the clock,
> i.e. it doesn't make sense to log old and new value)
> - Added example records produced by chronyd -q (see the commit message
> of the last patch)
>
> v2: https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2018-June/msg00114.html
> Changes in v2:
> - The audit_adjtime() function has been modified to only log those
> fields that contain values that are actually used, resulting in more
> compact records.
> - The audit_adjtime() call has been moved to do_adjtimex() in
> timekeeping.c
> - Added an additional patch (for review) that simplifies the detection
> if the syscall is read-only.
>
> v1: https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2018-June/msg00095.html
>
> Ondrej Mosnacek (2):
> audit: Add functions to log time adjustments
> timekeeping/ntp: Audit clock/NTP params adjustments
>
> include/linux/audit.h | 21 ++++++++++++++++
> include/uapi/linux/audit.h | 2 ++
> kernel/auditsc.c | 15 ++++++++++++
> kernel/time/ntp.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 3 +++
> 5 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists