|
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhT9sRXauYX+=21MUdOmfTZL4=sdGQsXojJjjTsdui+F_g@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 22:33:34 -0500 From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> Cc: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>, Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>, Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Christian Heimes <christian@...hon.org>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Elliott Hughes <enh@...gle.com>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, Eric Chiang <ericchiang@...gle.com>, Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, James Morris <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Jordan R Abrahams <ajordanr@...gle.com>, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Luca Boccassi <bluca@...ian.org>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, "Madhavan T . Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>, Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@....gouv.fr>, Scott Shell <scottsh@...rosoft.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Steve Dower <steve.dower@...hon.org>, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@....gouv.fr>, Vincent Strubel <vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr>, Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>, Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, audit@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 1/6] exec: Add a new AT_EXECVE_CHECK flag to execveat(2) On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 8:40 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 08:06:07AM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 1:42 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 05:17:00PM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 11:22 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote: ... > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c > > > > > index cd57053b4a69..8d9ba5600cf2 100644 > > > > > --- a/kernel/auditsc.c > > > > > +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c > > > > > @@ -2662,6 +2662,7 @@ void __audit_bprm(struct linux_binprm *bprm) > > > > > > > > > > context->type = AUDIT_EXECVE; > > > > > context->execve.argc = bprm->argc; > > > > > + context->execve.is_check = bprm->is_check; > > > > > > > > Where is execve.is_check used ? > > > > > > It is used in bprm_execve(), exposed to the audit framework, and > > > potentially used by LSMs. > > > > > bprm_execve() uses bprm->is_check, not the context->execve.is_check. > > Correct, this is only for audit but not used yet. > > Paul, Eric, do you want me to remove this field, leave it, or extend > this patch like this? > > diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c > index 8d9ba5600cf2..12cf89fa224a 100644 > --- a/kernel/auditsc.c > +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c > @@ -1290,6 +1290,8 @@ static void audit_log_execve_info(struct audit_context *context, > } > } while (arg < context->execve.argc); > > + audit_log_format(*ab, " check=%d", context->execve.is_check); > + > /* NOTE: the caller handles the final audit_log_end() call */ > > out: I would prefer to drop the audit changes rather than add a new field to the audit record at this point in time. Once we have a better understanding of how things are actually being deployed by distros, providers, and admins we can make a more reasoned decision on what we should audit with respect to AT_EXECVE_CHECK. Beyond that it looks okay to me from a LSM and audit perspective, so feel free to add my ACK once you've dropped the audit bits. Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> -- paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.