On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 07:20:33 PM Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/08, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > First of all, I do not pretend I understand this code. This was mostly
> > the question, and in fact I mostly asked about audit_bprm() in 0/1.
> >
> > However,
> >
> > On 08/30, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 30, 2013 03:06:46 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 07:11:34PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > > Btw. audit looks unmaintained... if you are going to take care of
> > > > > this code, perhaps you can look at
> > > > >
> > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137589907108485
> > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137590271809664
> > >
> > > You don't want to clear the TIF audit flag when context == NULL. What
> > > that will do is make a bunch of inauditable processes. There are times
> > > when audit is disabled and then re-enabled later. If the flag gets
> > > cleared, then a task's syscall will never enter the auditing framework
> > > from kernel/entry_64.S.
> > >
> > > That flag is 0 when auditing has never ever been enabled. If auditing is
> > > enabled, it should always be a 1 unless the task filter has determined
> > > that
> > > this process should not be audited ever. In practice, this is almost
> > > never
> > > used. But ensuring the TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT set to 1 on all processes is
> > > why we have the boot argument. Not setting audit=1 on the boot
> > > arguments means that any process running before the audit daemon
> > > enables auditing can never ever be audited because the only place its
> > > set is when processes are cloned.>
> > Then why audit_alloc() doesn't set TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT unconditionally?
> >
> > And I do not understand "when context == NULL" above. Say,
> > audit_syscall_entry() does nothing if !audit_context, and nobody except
> > copy_process() does audit_alloc(). So why do we need to trigger the
> > audit's paths if it is NULL?>
> > > Hope this clears up the use. NAK to the patch, it'll break auditing.
> >
> > Not really, but thanks for your reply anyway.
>
> So, Steve, do you still think that patch was wrong? Attached below
> just in case.
I think this looks OK. If the task filter NACK's auditing the process, then
clearing the flag is probably correct. I have design notes from back around the
2.6.7 kernel saying this was the intention.
ACK.
-Steve
> [PATCH 1/1] audit_alloc: clear TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT if !audit_context
>
> If audit_filter_task() nacks the new thread it makes sense
> to clear TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT which can be copied from parent
> by dup_task_struct().
>
> A wrong TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT is not really bad, but it triggers
> the "slow" audit paths in entry.S.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
> ---
> kernel/auditsc.c | 4 +++-
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c
> index 9845cb3..95293ab 100644
> --- a/kernel/auditsc.c
> +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c
> @@ -943,8 +943,10 @@ int audit_alloc(struct task_struct *tsk)
> return 0; /* Return if not auditing. */
>
> state = audit_filter_task(tsk, &key);
> - if (state == AUDIT_DISABLED)
> + if (state == AUDIT_DISABLED) {
> + clear_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT);
> return 0;
> + }
>
> if (!(context = audit_alloc_context(state))) {
> kfree(key);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
