From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] New audit message for NetLabel static/fallback labels Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:26:57 -0500 Message-ID: <200711211626.57401.paul.moore@hp.com> References: <20071121193512.12714.406.stgit@flek.americas.hpqcorp.net> <4744A156.3010308@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx3.redhat.com (mx3.redhat.com [172.16.48.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lALLRgJ5009105 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:27:42 -0500 Received: from g4t0016.houston.hp.com (g4t0016.houston.hp.com [15.201.24.19]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lALLR9cK006707 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:27:09 -0500 Received: from g4t0016.houston.hp.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by receive-from-antispam-filter (Postfix) with SMTP id 9AC571401D for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:27:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.fc.hp.com (smtp1.fc.hp.com [15.15.136.127]) by g4t0016.houston.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 905D214002 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:27:04 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <4744A156.3010308@hp.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com To: Linda Knippers Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Wednesday 21 November 2007 4:21:26 pm Linda Knippers wrote: > Paul Moore wrote: > > For reference, here are four examples of the new message types pulled > > from a Fedora Rawhide machine running this patch: > > > > * adding new fallback label using network interface "lo" and > > address "127.0.0.0/8" > > > > type=UNKNOWN[1416] msg=audit(1195671777.849:32): netlabel: \ > > auid=0 subj=root:system_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 \ > > netif=lo daddr=127.0.0.0 daddr_mask=8 \ > > sec_obj=system_u:object_r:unlabeled_t:s0 res=1 > > At the risk of being nit-picky, it seems like the convention for network > addresses is either separate address and netmask fields, or the combined > address/bits-in-netmask notation. For example, ifconfig (on ubuntu, > anyway) uses the former for IPv4 and the later for IPv6 addresses. > > lo Link encap:Local Loopback > inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 > inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host > > These audit records separate the two values but use the bits-in-netmask > instead of the netmask in dot notation, which seems inconsistent to me. > Seems like the audit record above should either have an address of > 127.0.0.0/8 or an address of 127.0.0.0 and a netmask of 255.0.0.0. I agree in that I like seeing the netmask attached to the address, but when I posed the question earlier to the list there was concern that this would cause breakage in the tools. I just thought of something, would you be more comfortable if I changed the name from 'daddr_mask' to 'daddr_prefixlen'? -- paul moore linux security @ hp