From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
To: linux-audit@redhat.com
Subject: Re: audit rule problem
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 12:16:33 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1630988.KWtGsrzIPi@x2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <479ba29c-7b23-1d55-281d-8f1a2a9c4582@magitekltd.com>
On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 12:06:31 PM EST LC Bruzenak wrote:
> On 11/14/2017 05:38 PM, LC Bruzenak wrote:
> > System:
> > Linux audit 2.6.32-696.3.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jun 7 11:51:39 EDT
> > 2017 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> > userspace audit-2.4.5-3
> > Red Hat Enterprise Linux Client release 6.9 (Santiago)
> >
> > I changed this line in /etc/audit/audit.rules from:
> > -a exit,always -F arch=b64 -S mount -S umount2 -k mount
> > to this:
> > -a exit,always -F arch=b64 -S mount -S umount2 -F
> > subj_type!=nothing_t -k mount
> >
> > Reloaded my rules, and now doing (as root):
> > # umount /boot; mount /boot
> >
> > no longer produces audit events. I did this because on another system
> > (mls policy, with lots of custom types) I lost the events once I
> > included some custom types installed and operational on the system, so
> > I was just trying to reduce this to a reproducible case. I can almost
> > see that a non-existent type might fail, but it maybe should fail to
> > load.?.
>
> Ugh.
> Looks like the entire problem was a non-existent subject type; I had a
> typo in the mls policy case.
> So the rules accept a type which does not exist, does not warn, and then
> fails to report all events.
> That's my story and I'm sticking to it...
OK. That's something that can be checked. And I confirm this is the case.
[root@x2 ~]# auditctl -a always,exit -F arch=b64 -S open -F subj_type=doesnt_exist_t
[root@x2 ~]# echo $?
0
[root@x2 ~]# auditctl -l | grep doesnt_exist_t
-a always,exit -F arch=b64 -S open -F subj_type=doesnt_exist_t
[root@x2 ~]# auditctl -d always,exit -F arch=b64 -S open -F subj_type=doesnt_exist_t
That said, you can also write a rule with auid=40000 which would be an invalid
user. The kernel has no concept of what uids are valid. So, I expect we have
the same issue with policy. I don't know if the kernel can check if a type is
valid. Typically policy is compiled into numbers and that's what the kernel
understands.
-Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-15 17:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-15 0:38 audit rule problem LC Bruzenak
2017-11-15 17:06 ` LC Bruzenak
2017-11-15 17:16 ` Steve Grubb [this message]
2017-11-15 17:20 ` LC Bruzenak
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-07-17 14:05 Audit " Roger Holm
2007-07-19 13:17 ` Steve Grubb
2007-07-19 17:59 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1630988.KWtGsrzIPi@x2 \
--to=sgrubb@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.