LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@hp.com>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Cc: casey@schaufler-ca.com, "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, Paul Moore <paul.moore@hp.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	LSM-ML <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	Audit-ML <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
	Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -v2] Smack: Integrate with Audit
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:23:29 -0400
Message-ID: <47D80381.3030001@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1205336897.23866.296.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>

Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 08:40 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> --- Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 04:44 +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
>>>> Hi!,
>>>>
>>>> Setup the new Audit hooks for Smack. The AUDIT_SUBJ_USER and 
>>>> AUDIT_OBJ_USER SELinux flags are recycled to avoid `auditd' 
>>>> userspace modifications. Smack only needs auditing on 
>>>> a subject/object bases, so those flags were enough.
>>> Only question I have is whether audit folks are ok with reuse of the
>>> flags in this manner, and whether the _USER flag is best suited for this
>>> purpose if you are going to reuse an existing flag (since Smack label
>>> seems more like a SELinux type than a SELinux user).
>> To-mate-o toe-maht-o.
>>
>> There really doesn't seem to be any real reason to create a new
>> flag just because the granularity is different. The choice between
>> _USER and _TYPE (and _ROLE for that matter) is arbitrary from a
>> functional point of view. I say that since Smack has users, but
>> not types or roles, _USER makes the most sense.
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstand, but Smack labels don't represent users (i.e.
> user identity) in any way, so it seemed like a mismatch to use the _USER
> flag there.  Whereas types in SELinux bear some similarity to Smack
> labels - simple unstructured names whose meaning is only defined by the
> policy rules.
> 
> Regardless, it seems like the audit maintainers ought to weigh in on the
> matter.

I don't count as an audit maintainer but I think as long as the
man page is updated to say something other than:

subj_user
    Program's SE Linux User

then its fine for multiple LSMs to use the same rule flags and its
better than inventing new ones for each LSM.  I don't have an opinion
on which flag that's currently specific to SELinux should be recycled
but I think the manpage could be made more generic for all of them.

>>> Certainly will confuse matters if a user has audit filters on SELinux
>>> users in their /etc/audit/audit.rules and then boots a kernel with Smack
>>> enabled.
>> Somehow I doubt that will be their biggest concern.

I agree.

-- ljk
> 


  reply index

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-10 12:49 [RFC][PATCH] Smack<->Audit integration Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-10 16:07 ` Casey Schaufler
2008-03-10 18:26   ` Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-10 18:43     ` Casey Schaufler
2008-03-12  2:44       ` [RFC][PATCH -v2] Smack: Integrate with Audit Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-12  4:23         ` Casey Schaufler
2008-03-12 12:18           ` [PATCH -v2b] " Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-12 12:52         ` [RFC][PATCH -v2] " Stephen Smalley
2008-03-12 15:40           ` Casey Schaufler
2008-03-12 15:48             ` Stephen Smalley
2008-03-12 16:23               ` Linda Knippers [this message]
2008-03-12 16:43               ` Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-12 18:09                 ` Casey Schaufler
2008-03-13 13:55           ` Steve Grubb

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=47D80381.3030001@hp.com \
    --to=linda.knippers@hp.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=darwish.07@gmail.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paul.moore@hp.com \
    --cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
    --cc=sgrubb@redhat.com \
    /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

LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/0 lkml/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/1 lkml/git/1.git
	git clone --mirror https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/2 lkml/git/2.git
	git clone --mirror https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/3 lkml/git/3.git
	git clone --mirror https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/4 lkml/git/4.git
	git clone --mirror https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/5 lkml/git/5.git
	git clone --mirror https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/6 lkml/git/6.git
	git clone --mirror https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/7 lkml/git/7.git
	git clone --mirror https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/8 lkml/git/8.git
	git clone --mirror https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/9 lkml/git/9.git
	git clone --mirror https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/10 lkml/git/10.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 lkml lkml/ https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml \
		linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index lkml

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git