Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] seccomp: Audit attempts to modify the actions_logged sysctl

Steve Grubb
2018-05-03T21:12:45Z

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 4:51:36 PM EDT Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 05/03/2018 03:48 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 4:18:26 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 11:53:19 AM EDT Tyler Hicks wrote:
> >>>>> The decision to log a seccomp action will always be subject to the
> >>>>> value of the kernel.seccomp.actions_logged sysctl, even for processes
> >>>>> that are being inspected via the audit subsystem, in an upcoming
> >>>>> patch.
> >>>>> Therefore, we need to emit an audit record on attempts at writing to
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> actions_logged sysctl when auditing is enabled.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This patch updates the write handler for the actions_logged sysctl to
> >>>>> emit an audit record on attempts to write to the sysctl. Successful
> >>>>> writes to the sysctl will result in a record that includes a
> >>>>> normalized
> >>>>> list of logged actions in the "actions" field and a "res" field equal
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> 0. Unsuccessful writes to the sysctl will result in a record that
> >>>>> doesn't include the "actions" field and has a "res" field equal to 1.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not all unsuccessful writes to the sysctl are audited. For example,
> >>>>> an
> >>>>> audit record will not be emitted if an unprivileged process attempts
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> open the sysctl file for reading since that access control check is
> >>>>> not
> >>>>> part of the sysctl's write handler.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Below are some example audit records when writing various strings to
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> actions_logged sysctl.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Writing "not-a-real-action", when the kernel.seccomp.actions_logged
> >>>>> sysctl previously was "kill_process kill_thread trap errno trace
> >>>>> log",
> >>>>>
> >>>>> emits this audit record:
> >>>>> type=CONFIG_CHANGE msg=audit(1525275273.537:130): op=seccomp-logging
> >>>>> old-actions=kill_process,kill_thread,trap,errno,trace,log res=0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you then write "kill_process kill_thread errno trace log", this
> >>>>> audit
> >>>>>
> >>>>> record is emitted:
> >>>>> type=CONFIG_CHANGE msg=audit(1525275310.208:136): op=seccomp-logging
> >>>>> actions=kill_process,kill_thread,errno,trace,log
> >>>>> old-actions=kill_process,kill_thread,trap,errno,trace,log res=1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you then write the string "log log errno trace kill_process
> >>>>> kill_thread", which is unordered and contains the log action twice,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it results in the same actions value as the previous record:
> >>>>> type=CONFIG_CHANGE msg=audit(1525275325.613:142): op=seccomp-logging
> >>>>> actions=kill_process,kill_thread,errno,trace,log
> >>>>> old-actions=kill_process,kill_thread,errno,trace,log res=1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No audit records are generated when reading the actions_logged
> >>>>> sysctl.
> >>>>
> >>>> ACK for the format of the records.
> >>>
> >>> I just wanted to clarify the record format with you Steve ... the
> >>> "actions" and "old-actions" fields may not be included in the record
> >>> in cases where there is an error building the action value string, are
> >>> you okay with that or would you prefer the fields to always be
> >>> included but with a "?" for the value?
> >>
> >> A ? would be more in line with how other things are handled.
> >
> > That's what I thought.
> >
> > Would you mind putting together a v3 Tyler? :)
>
> To be clear, "?" is only to be used when the call to
> seccomp_names_from_actions_logged() fails, right?

Yes and that is a question mark with no quotes in the audit record.

> If the sysctl write fails for some other reason, such as when an invalid
> action name is specified, can you confirm that you still want *no*
> "actions" field,

Its best that fields do not disappear. In the case of invalid input, you can
just leave the new value as ? so that nothing malicious can be injected into
the logs

> the "old-actions" field to be the value prior to attempting the update to
> the sysctl, and res to be 0?

Yes

-Steve