From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Paris Subject: Re: PATH records show fcaps Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:55:41 -0400 Message-ID: <1224521741.3189.100.camel@paris-laptop> References: <1224343392.3189.74.camel@paris-laptop> <20081020163104.GA21901@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081020163104.GA21901@us.ibm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@redhat.com): > > type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1224342849.465:43): arch=c000003e syscall=59 success=yes exit=0 a0=25b6a00 a1=2580410 a2=2580140 a3=8 items=2 ppid=2219 pid=2266 auid=0 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0 fsgid=0 tty=pts0 ses=1 comm="ping" exe="/bin/ping" subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null) > > type=EXECVE msg=audit(1224342849.465:43): argc=2 a0="ping" a1="127.0.0.1" > > type=CWD msg=audit(1224342849.465:43): cwd="/root" > > type=PATH msg=audit(1224342849.465:43): item=0 name="/bin/ping" inode=49227 dev=fd:00 mode=0100755 ouid=0 ogid=0 rdev=00:00 obj=system_u:object_r:ping_exec_t:s0 cap_permitted=0000000000002000 cap_inheritable=0000000000000000 > > type=PATH msg=audit(1224342849.465:43): item=1 name=(null) inode=507963 dev=fd:00 mode=0100755 ouid=0 ogid=0 rdev=00:00 obj=system_u:object_r:ld_so_t:s0 > > > > This good? If either cap_permitted or cap_inheritable have anything set > > I show them both. In the above example would you rather I only showed > > cap_permitted and dropped cap_inheritable? Did I see correctly that > > I think dropping the empty one is fine. > > Steve's suggestion of cap_prm and cap_inh are good for being shorter and > matching proc output. But OTOH it's a bit confusing as at first I > thought these were the task's values. Would it be too terse to just > use fP and fI? yes, too terse. How about cap_fP, cap_fI, cap_fVer, cap_fEffBit ? Based on your other comments I'm going to go add fVer and fEffBit.