All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc: Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] fanotify,audit: Allow audit to use the full permission event response
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:26:00 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4778109.GXAFRqVoOG@x2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y7zWlFbrrNcfGauJ@madcap2.tricolour.ca>

Hello Richard,

On Monday, January 9, 2023 10:08:04 PM EST Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> When I use an application that expected the old API, meaning it simply
> does:
> > 
> > response.fd = metadata->fd;
> > response.response = reply;
> > close(metadata->fd);
> > write(fd, &response, sizeof(struct fanotify_response));
> > 
> > I get access denials. Every time. If the program is using the new API and
> > sets FAN_INFO, then it works as expected. I'll do some more testing but I
> > think there is something wrong in the compatibility path.
> 
> I'll have a closer look, because this wasn't the intended behaviour.

I have done more testing. I think what I saw might have been caused by a 
stale selinux label (label exists, policy is deleted). With selinux in 
permissive mode it's all working as expected - both old and new API.

-Steve



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] fanotify, audit: Allow audit to use the full permission event response
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:26:00 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4778109.GXAFRqVoOG@x2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y7zWlFbrrNcfGauJ@madcap2.tricolour.ca>

Hello Richard,

On Monday, January 9, 2023 10:08:04 PM EST Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> When I use an application that expected the old API, meaning it simply
> does:
> > 
> > response.fd = metadata->fd;
> > response.response = reply;
> > close(metadata->fd);
> > write(fd, &response, sizeof(struct fanotify_response));
> > 
> > I get access denials. Every time. If the program is using the new API and
> > sets FAN_INFO, then it works as expected. I'll do some more testing but I
> > think there is something wrong in the compatibility path.
> 
> I'll have a closer look, because this wasn't the intended behaviour.

I have done more testing. I think what I saw might have been caused by a 
stale selinux label (label exists, policy is deleted). With selinux in 
permissive mode it's all working as expected - both old and new API.

-Steve


--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit


  reply	other threads:[~2023-01-10 15:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-12-12 14:06 [PATCH v5 0/3] fanotify: Allow user space to pass back additional audit info Richard Guy Briggs
2022-12-12 14:06 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2022-12-12 14:06 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] fanotify: Ensure consistent variable type for response Richard Guy Briggs
2022-12-12 14:06   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2022-12-20 23:30   ` Paul Moore
2022-12-20 23:30     ` Paul Moore
2022-12-12 14:06 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] fanotify: define struct members to hold response decision context Richard Guy Briggs
2022-12-12 14:06   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2022-12-16 16:43   ` Jan Kara
2022-12-16 16:43     ` Jan Kara
2022-12-16 17:05     ` Paul Moore
2022-12-16 17:05       ` Paul Moore
2022-12-19 10:10       ` Jan Kara
2022-12-19 10:10         ` Jan Kara
2022-12-22 20:47     ` Richard Guy Briggs
2022-12-22 20:47       ` Richard Guy Briggs
2023-01-03 12:42       ` Jan Kara
2023-01-03 12:42         ` Jan Kara
2023-01-16 20:42         ` Richard Guy Briggs
2023-01-16 20:42           ` Richard Guy Briggs
2023-01-17  8:27           ` Jan Kara
2023-01-17  8:27             ` Jan Kara
2023-01-17 19:33             ` Richard Guy Briggs
2023-01-17 19:33               ` Richard Guy Briggs
2022-12-12 14:06 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] fanotify,audit: Allow audit to use the full permission event response Richard Guy Briggs
2022-12-12 14:06   ` [PATCH v5 3/3] fanotify, audit: " Richard Guy Briggs
2022-12-20 23:31   ` [PATCH v5 3/3] fanotify,audit: " Paul Moore
2022-12-20 23:31     ` Paul Moore
2022-12-22 20:42     ` Richard Guy Briggs
2022-12-22 20:42       ` Richard Guy Briggs
2022-12-22 21:16       ` Paul Moore
2022-12-22 21:16         ` Paul Moore
2023-01-10  0:06   ` Steve Grubb
2023-01-10  0:06     ` [PATCH v5 3/3] fanotify, audit: " Steve Grubb
2023-01-10  3:08     ` [PATCH v5 3/3] fanotify,audit: " Richard Guy Briggs
2023-01-10  3:08       ` Richard Guy Briggs
2023-01-10 15:26       ` Steve Grubb [this message]
2023-01-10 15:26         ` [PATCH v5 3/3] fanotify, audit: " Steve Grubb
2023-01-10 18:32         ` Richard Guy Briggs
2023-01-10 18:32           ` Richard Guy Briggs

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=4778109.GXAFRqVoOG@x2 \
    --to=sgrubb@redhat.com \
    --cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
    --cc=eparis@parisplace.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=rgb@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.