On 12/06/2017 12:47 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 12/6/2017 9:51 AM, Tyler Hicks wrote: >> Hello - The AppArmor project would like for AppArmor audit records to be >> supported by the audit-userspace tools, such as ausearch, but it >> requires some coordination between the linux-security-module and >> linux-audit lists. This was raised as a feature request years ago in >> Ubuntu and more recently in Debian: >> >> https://launchpad.net/bugs/1117804 >> https://bugs.debian.org/872726 >> >> The quick summary of the problem at hand is that the audit-userspace >> project requires that each LSM use a unique record type range for audit >> records while the kernel's common_lsm_audit() function uses the same >> record type (1400) for all records. SELinux, AppArmor, and SMACK are all >> using common_lsm_audit() today and, therefore, the 1400-1499 range. > > My, but this is a rat's nest, isn't it? The constants, such as > AUDIT_MAC_STATUS, > look as if they are intended to be generic. But the comment says the range is > for SELinux. Some of the events, including AUDIT_MAC_MAP_ADD *are* generic, in > that they are from the netlbl subsystem. But some, AUDIT_AVC being paramount, > are indeed SELinux specific.
It is a rat's nest, which is why the Ubuntu bug above has lingered for so long. Good point regarding AUDIT_MAC_MAP_ADD being generic. > >> While it will be potentially painful to switch, the AppArmor project is >> considering to use a unique range in order for audit-userspace to >> support AppArmor audit records. IMHO, SMACK would be free to continue >> using 1400-1499 as long as they don't need audit-userspace support and >> SELinux would continue using 1400-1499. > > Aside from the comment that says 1400-1499 are for SELinux, and the three > events (1400-1402) that are SELinux specific, the events really are general. > Why not add the AppArmor specifics to the 1400 range? Give them a generic > sounding name and you'll achieve consistency. Change the comment to say > "Security Module use" instead of "SELinux use". I would be alright with this solution. We could even claim 1400-1599 or even 1400-1699 for "Security Module use" if we thought 100 record types may not be enough in the future. I could see how there may be a desire for each LSM to have their own blocks of 100 where they can assign record types freely without coordination with LSM maintainers but I don't feel like new record types come around often enough for this to matter much. > >> Steve Grubb previously told me that he intends 1500-1599 to be used by >> AppArmor: >> >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2014-May/msg00119.html >> >> >> John Johansen tells me that AppArmor previously used the 1500-1599 range >> before AppArmor was upstreamed. >> >> There's a conflicting comment in the kernel stating that 1500-1599 is to >> by used by kernel LSPP events. As far as I can tell, there were never >> any kernel LSPP events that used the range. Steve is the one that added >> that comment so I think it is a safe range for AppArmor to use: >> >> https://git.kernel.org/linus/90d526c074ae5db484388da56c399acf892b6c17 >> >> Considering audit-userspace's stance, does the LSM community agree that >> common_lsm_audit() should be modified to accept an audit record type >> parameter to pass on to audit_log_start()? >> >> If so, does everyone agree that 1500-1599 would be acceptable for >> AppArmor to use? > > Why not change the comment and continue to use the 1400 range, adding > events as necessary? I don't have any problems with that but I'd like Steve Grubb to weigh in on it. Tyler
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Linux-audit mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
