linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 01/10] audit: collect audit task parameters

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: <20190104220437.GB19346@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Fri, 4 Jan 2019 14:04:37 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc:     containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, luto@...nel.org, carlos@...hat.com,
        dhowells@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, simo@...hat.com,
        eparis@...isplace.org, serge@...lyn.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 01/10] audit: collect audit task
 parameters

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 09:57:35AM -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 2019-01-03 18:50, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 04:07:36PM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > The audit-related parameters in struct task_struct should ideally be
> > > collected together and accessed through a standard audit API.
> > > 
> > > Collect the existing loginuid, sessionid and audit_context together in a
> > > new struct audit_task_info called "audit" in struct task_struct.
> > > 
> > > Use kmem_cache to manage this pool of memory.
> > > Un-inline audit_free() to be able to always recover that memory.
> > > 
> > > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/81
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
> > 
> > Overall I am not sure if keeping task_struct a bit smaller is worth
> > the added complexity, but I guess that is just me. 
> 
> The motivation was to consolidate all the audit bits into one pointer,
> isolating them from the rest of the kernel, restricting access only to
> helper functions to prevent abuse by other subsystems and trying to
> reduce kABI issues in the future.  I agree it is a bit more complex.  It
> was provoked by the need to add contid which seemed to make the most
> sense as a peer to loginuid and sessionid, and adding it to task_struct
> would have made it a bit too generic and available.
> 
> This is addressed at some length by Paul Moore here in v2:
> 	https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/18/759
> 
That makes sense. Thanks a lot for the clarification.

Guenter