linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] selinux: add tracepoint on denials

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]

Date:   Fri, 14 Aug 2020 19:07:13 +0200
From:   peter enderborg <peter.enderborg@...y.com>
To:     Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
        Thiébaud Weksteen <tweek@...gle.com>
CC:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Nick Kralevich <nnk@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] selinux: add tracepoint on denials

On 8/14/20 6:51 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 9:05 AM Thiébaud Weksteen <tweek@...gle.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 5:41 PM Stephen Smalley
>> <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com> wrote:
>>> An explanation here of how one might go about decoding audited and
>>> tclass would be helpful to users (even better would be a script to do it
>>> for them).  Again, I know how to do that but not everyone using
>>> perf/ftrace will.
>> What about something along those lines:
>>
>> The tclass value can be mapped to a class by searching
>> security/selinux/flask.h. The audited value is a bit field of the
>> permissions described in security/selinux/av_permissions.h for the
>> corresponding class.
> Sure, I guess that works.  Would be nice if we just included the class
> and permission name(s) in the event itself but I guess you viewed that
> as too heavyweight?

The class name is added in part 2. Im not sure how a proper format for permission
would look like in trace terms. It is a list, right?