On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 4:43 PM Casey Schaufler [off-list ref] wrote:

On 5/18/2020 11:02 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 7:30 PM Casey Schaufler [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Create a new audit record type to contain the subject information
when there are multiple security modules that require such data.
This record is emitted before the other records for the event, but
is linked with the same timestamp and serial number.

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com
---

With this patch, I see userspace audit records like this one:

type=SYSTEM_BOOT msg=audit(1589816792.181:103): pid=789 uid=0
auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295 subj=? subj=system_u:system_r:init_t:s0
msg=' comm="systemd-update-utmp"
exe="/usr/lib/systemd/systemd-update-utmp" hostname=? addr=?
terminal=? res=success'

I'm guessing that userspace is appending the second subj= field when
it sees subj=? or otherwise is missing subj= information?

I haven't looked at the userspace code, but I expect you're right.
It looks like there will need to be some change in the userspace
for the multiple LSM case. The "completion" shown here isn't correct,
because it only fills in one of the subject attributes, not both.

Wait, didn't we agree on a a "subj=? subj_selinux=XXX
subj_apparmor=YYY subj_smack=ZZZ" format?  It looks like there are two
'subj' fields in the record above which is bad, don't do that please.

quoted

Then we have kernel audit records like this:

type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(1589816791.959:101): proctitle=2F7362696E2F617564697463
746C002D52002F6574632F61756469742F61756469742E72756C6573
type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1589816791.959:101): arch=c000003e syscall=44
success=yes exit=1056 a0=3 a1=7fff9ccc98a0 a2=420 a3=0 items=0
ppid=773 pid=783 auid=4294967295 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0
egid=0 sgid=0 fsgid=0 tty=(none) ses=4294967295 comm="auditctl"
exe="/usr/sbin/auditctl" subj=? key=(null)
type=UNKNOWN[1420] msg=audit(1589816791.959:101):
subj_selinux=system_u:system_r:unconfined_service_t:s0
subj_apparmor==unconfined
type=CONFIG_CHANGE msg=audit(1589816791.959:101): auid=4294967295
ses=4294967295 subj=? op=add_rule key=(null) list=1 res=1
type=UNKNOWN[1420] msg=audit(1589816791.959:101):
subj_selinux=system_u:system_r:unconfined_service_t:s0
subj_apparmor==unconfined

where we are getting multiple copies of the new record type, one for
each record type that had subj=?.

While obviously wasteful, the type=1420 behavior is consistent with
the subj=? behavior, which is to duplicate the subj= value. I know
we've got enough hobgoblins in the audit system that we don't need
to add any more in the name of a foolish consistency.

You need to provide a bit more reason why we need byte-for-byte
duplicate records in a single event.  As it currently stands this
looks like something we definitely don't want.

--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com