From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: audit 1.2.2 released
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:23:32 -0400
Message-ID: <200605161323.32162.sgrubb@redhat.com>
References: <200605121726.32952.sgrubb@redhat.com>
	<200605161134.29407.sgrubb@redhat.com> <4469F585.6030108@hp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4469F585.6030108@hp.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-audit@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
To: Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@hp.com>
Cc: Linux Audit <linux-audit@redhat.com>
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

On Tuesday 16 May 2006 11:53, Linda Knippers wrote:
> His transcript was when running in permissive mode so won't you only get
> the avc deny once?

If its in permissive, you shouldn't get any failure that results in EPERM from 
SE Linux. But on second look, this AVC has a success=yes, so maybe not the 
smoking gun. If there was a corresponding AVC with success=no, then that 
would be notable.

AFAICT, there are 2 places where an access decision is made, audit_netlink_ok 
in kernel/audit.c. And the other place is selinux_nlmsg_lookup in 
security/selinux/nlmsgtab.c. I think you'd want to patch your kernel to 
printk its access decision results in both of those functions. That should 
tell us something about what's going on.

-Steve