From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A270ECAAD1 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 22:14:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1661984069; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=e1VI3sA/sqwUbzKGR/NuwSjJXahpYtp6cDlDK0ULB+o=; b=WKJsO9I+2HuS4SkENbZEp+bsHXVHdQ6V2r5m0yPe4SMZv5zhVWwlQ+4y4uoTyWjdDutmcl PglUyJ6fapMrdI09FNJt5W7uCC/QEj2ycYLLSzEPqQOnUY3ZiA2ebAocAOqad/b1zQsTFF tGtlZrIwQq8DecP50HhVGrgGyLdKzFI= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-626-Hqm_hFr0PFWjwotuiQQL1w-1; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 18:14:26 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Hqm_hFr0PFWjwotuiQQL1w-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D026E811E9B; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 22:14:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (unknown [10.30.29.100]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16B1440149B6; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 22:14:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA0D91946A45; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 22:14:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA241946A40 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 21:25:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id C02C92026D64; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 21:25:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from x2.localnet (unknown [10.22.33.226]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A3232026D4C; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 21:25:16 +0000 (UTC) From: Steve Grubb To: Paul Moore , Richard Guy Briggs Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] fanotify, audit: Allow audit to use the full permission event response Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 17:25:15 -0400 Message-ID: <12063373.O9o76ZdvQC@x2> Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.4 X-BeenThere: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Audit Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Jan Kara , Amir Goldstein , LKML , Linux-Audit Mailing List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Sender: "Linux-audit" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.11.54.1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 5:07:25 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c > > > index 433418d73584..f000fec52360 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/auditsc.c > > > +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c > > > @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ > > > #include > > > #include > > > #include // struct open_how > > > +#include > > > > > > #include "audit.h" > > > > > > @@ -2899,10 +2900,34 @@ void __audit_log_kern_module(char *name) > > > context->type = AUDIT_KERN_MODULE; > > > } > > > > > > -void __audit_fanotify(u32 response) > > > +void __audit_fanotify(u32 response, size_t len, char *buf) > > > { > > > - audit_log(audit_context(), GFP_KERNEL, > > > - AUDIT_FANOTIFY, "resp=%u", response); > > > + struct fanotify_response_info_audit_rule *friar; > > > + size_t c = len; > > > + char *ib = buf; > > > + > > > + if (!(len && buf)) { > > > + audit_log(audit_context(), GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_FANOTIFY, > > > + "resp=%u fan_type=0 fan_info=?", response); > > > + return; > > > + } > > > + while (c >= sizeof(struct fanotify_response_info_header)) { > > > + friar = (struct fanotify_response_info_audit_rule > > > *)buf; > > > > Since the only use of this at the moment is the > > fanotify_response_info_rule, why not pass the > > fanotify_response_info_rule struct directly into this function? We > > can always change it if we need to in the future without affecting > > userspace, and it would simplify the code. > > Steve, would it make any sense for there to be more than one > FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_AUDIT_RULE header in a message? Could there be more > than one rule that contributes to a notify reason? If not, would it be > reasonable to return -EINVAL if there is more than one? I don't see a reason for sending more than one header. What is more probable is the need to send additional data in that header. I was thinking of maybe bit mapping it in the rule number. But I'd suggest padding the struct just in case it needs expanding some day. -Steev -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit