On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:39:41PM -0800, John Johansen wrote: > When policy specifies a transition to a profile that is not currently > loaded, it result in exec being denied. However the failure is not being > audited correctly audited if only auditing denials. > > This is because the exec permission is was granted and is still set in > the mask but the audit code is using this to mask of permissions requests > that where granted. > > Signed-off-by: John Johansen <[email protected]>
Acked-By: Steve Beattie <[email protected]> though a comment explaining why you're manipulating perms.allow might be nice. I can't decide if the need to do this feels like a failing of the aa_audit_file() API. > --- > security/apparmor/domain.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/security/apparmor/domain.c b/security/apparmor/domain.c > index 60f0c76..2cbb9df 100644 > --- a/security/apparmor/domain.c > +++ b/security/apparmor/domain.c > @@ -443,6 +443,7 @@ int apparmor_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm) > } else { > error = -ENOENT; > info = "profile not found"; > + perms.allow &= ~MAY_EXEC; > } > } > } else if (COMPLAIN_MODE(profile)) { -- Steve Beattie <[email protected]> http://NxNW.org/~steve/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
