On 2018-04-16 09:26, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> 2018-04-10 1:34 GMT+02:00 Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com>:
> > There were two formats of the audit MAC_STATUS record, one of which was more
> > standard than the other.  One listed enforcing status changes and the
> > other listed enabled status changes with a non-standard label.  In
> > addition, the record was missing information about which LSM was
> > responsible and the operation's completion status.  While this record is
> > only issued on success, the parser expects the res= field to be present.
> >
> > old enforcing/permissive:
> > type=MAC_STATUS msg=audit(1523312831.378:24514): enforcing=0 
> > old_enforcing=1 auid=0 ses=1
> > old enable/disable:
> > type=MAC_STATUS msg=audit(1523312831.378:24514): selinux=0 auid=0 ses=1
> >
> > List both sets of status and old values and add the lsm= field and the
> > res= field.
> >
> > Here is the new format:
> > type=MAC_STATUS msg=audit(1523293828.657:891): enforcing=0 old_enforcing=1 
> > auid=0 ses=1 enabled=1 old-enabled=1 lsm=selinux res=1
> >
> > This record already accompanied a SYSCALL record.
> >
> > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/46
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  security/selinux/selinuxfs.c | 11 +++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c b/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
> > index 00eed84..00b21b2 100644
> > --- a/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
> > +++ b/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
> > @@ -145,10 +145,11 @@ static ssize_t sel_write_enforce(struct file *file, 
> > const char __user *buf,
> >                 if (length)
> >                         goto out;
> >                 audit_log(current->audit_context, GFP_KERNEL, 
> > AUDIT_MAC_STATUS,
> > -                       "enforcing=%d old_enforcing=%d auid=%u ses=%u",
> > +                       "enforcing=%d old_enforcing=%d auid=%u ses=%u"
> > +                       " enabled=%d old-enabled=%d lsm=selinux res=1",
> 
> This is just a tiny nit but why does "old_enforcing" use an underscore
> and "old-enabled" a dash? Shouldn't the style be consistent across
> fields?

Yes, but my understanding is a preference for underscore, and not to
change existing field names.

Steve?

> Just my two cents...

These details are worth noticing, thank you.

> >                         new_value, selinux_enforcing,
> >                         from_kuid(&init_user_ns, 
> > audit_get_loginuid(current)),
> > -                       audit_get_sessionid(current));
> > +                       audit_get_sessionid(current), selinux_enabled, 
> > selinux_enabled);
> >                 selinux_enforcing = new_value;
> >                 if (selinux_enforcing)
> >                         avc_ss_reset(0);
> > @@ -272,9 +273,11 @@ static ssize_t sel_write_disable(struct file *file, 
> > const char __user *buf,
> >                 if (length)
> >                         goto out;
> >                 audit_log(current->audit_context, GFP_KERNEL, 
> > AUDIT_MAC_STATUS,
> > -                       "selinux=0 auid=%u ses=%u",
> > +                       "enforcing=%d old_enforcing=%d auid=%u ses=%u"
> > +                       " enabled=%d old-enabled=%d lsm=selinux res=1",
> > +                       selinux_enforcing, selinux_enforcing,
> 
> ^ also here
> 
> >                         from_kuid(&init_user_ns, 
> > audit_get_loginuid(current)),
> > -                       audit_get_sessionid(current));
> > +                       audit_get_sessionid(current), 0, 1);
> >         }
> >
> >         length = count;
> 
> Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com>

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.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

Reply via email to