LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: "Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@kernel.org>
Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, sgrubb@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] AUDIT: audit when fcaps increase the permitted or inheritable capabilities
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:14:30 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081022141430.GB21612@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48FF21BF.9090509@kernel.org>

Quoting Andrew G. Morgan (morgan@kernel.org):
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> [s/viro@...ok/viro@...uk/]
> 
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> Logging execve()s where there is only an increase in capabilities seems
> >> wrong to me. To me it seems equally important to log any event where an
> >> execve() yields pP != 0.
> > 
> > True.
> > 
> > ... except if (!issecure(SECURE_NOROOT) && uid==0) I guess?
> > 
> > And then it also might be interesting in the case where
> > (!issecure(SECURE_NOROOT) && uid==0) and pP is not full.
> 
> I guess so, although this seems like a case of being interested in a
> (unusual) non-privileged execve().

I'm not sure what you mean - but this can only happen if bits are taken
out of the capability bounding set, right?

> >>>  	rc = bprm_caps_from_vfs_caps(&vcaps, bprm);
> >>>  
> >>> +	audit_log_bprm_fcaps(bprm, &vcaps);
> >>> +
> >> When rc != 0, the execve() will fail. Is it appropriate to log in this case?
> > 
> > It might fail because fP contains bits not in pP', right?  That's
> > probably interesting to auditors.
> 
> In which case, how is the fact it didn't execute captured in the audit log?

I assume as a FAIL?  (Not sure of the exact wording in the logs)

-serge

  reply	other threads:[~2008-10-22 14:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-10-20 22:25 [PATCH 0/4] Audit support for file capabilities Eric Paris
2008-10-20 22:26 ` [PATCH 1/4] CAPABILITIES: add cpu endian vfs caps structure Eric Paris
2008-10-21  5:50   ` Andrew G. Morgan
2008-10-21 13:22     ` Eric Paris
2008-10-20 22:26 ` [PATCH 2/4] AUDIT: output permitted and inheritable fcaps in PATH records Eric Paris
2008-10-20 22:26 ` [PATCH 3/4] AUDIT: audit when fcaps increase the permitted or inheritable capabilities Eric Paris
2008-10-21  5:53   ` Andrew G. Morgan
2008-10-21 19:16     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2008-10-22 12:51       ` Andrew G. Morgan
2008-10-22 14:14         ` Serge E. Hallyn [this message]
2008-10-23  4:13           ` Andrew G. Morgan
2008-10-29 21:58             ` Eric Paris
2008-10-30 13:35               ` Serge E. Hallyn
2008-10-20 22:26 ` [PATCH 4/4] AUDIT: emit new record type showing all capset information Eric Paris

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20081022141430.GB21612@us.ibm.com \
    --to=serue@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=eparis@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=morgan@kernel.org \
    --cc=sgrubb@redhat.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 3/4] AUDIT: audit when fcaps increase the permitted or inheritable capabilities' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).