linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] fanotify,audit: Allow audit to use the full permission event response

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y9Gn4YmKFBot/R4l@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2023 17:06:25 -0500
From:   Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] fanotify,audit: Allow audit to use the full
 permission event response

On 2023-01-20 13:52, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:34 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Hello Richard,
> >
> > I built a new kernel and tested this with old and new user space. It is
> > working as advertised. The only thing I'm wondering about is why we have 3F
> > as the default value when no additional info was sent? Would it be better to
> > just make it 0?
> 
> ...
> 
> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 4:14:07 PM EST Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c
> > > index d1fb821de104..3133c4175c15 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/auditsc.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c
> > > @@ -2877,10 +2878,19 @@ void __audit_log_kern_module(char *name)
> > >       context->type = AUDIT_KERN_MODULE;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > -void __audit_fanotify(u32 response)
> > > +void __audit_fanotify(u32 response, struct
> > > fanotify_response_info_audit_rule *friar) {
> > > -     audit_log(audit_context(), GFP_KERNEL,
> > > -             AUDIT_FANOTIFY, "resp=%u", response);
> > > +     /* {subj,obj}_trust values are {0,1,2}: no,yes,unknown */
> > > +     if (friar->hdr.type == FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_NONE) {
> > > +             audit_log(audit_context(), GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_FANOTIFY,
> > > +                       "resp=%u fan_type=%u fan_info=3F subj_trust=2
> > obj_trust=2",
> > > +                       response, FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_NONE);
> > > +             return;
> > > +     }
> 
> (I'm working under the assumption that the "fan_info=3F" in the record
> above is what Steve was referring to in his comment.)
> 
> I vaguely recall Richard commenting on this in the past, although
> maybe not ... my thought is that the "3F" is simply the hex encoded
> "?" character in ASCII ('man 7 ascii' is your friend).  I suppose the
> question is what to do in the FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_NONE case.
> 
> Historically when we had a missing field we would follow the "field=?"
> pattern, but I don't recall doing that for a field which was
> potentially hex encoded, is there an existing case where we use "?"
> for a field that is hex encoded?  If so, we can swap out the "3F" for
> a more obvious "?".

I was presuming encoding the zero: "30"

> However, another option might be to simply output the current
> AUDIT_FANOTIFY record format in the FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_NONE case, e.g.
> only "resp=%u".  This is a little against the usual guidance of
> "fields should not disappear from a record", but considering that
> userspace will always need to support the original resp-only format
> for compatibility reasons this may be an option.

I don't have a strong opinion.

> paul-moore.com

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635