From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -v2] Smack: Integrate with Audit Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:43:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20080312164358.GA9540@ubuntu> References: <746579.84816.qm@web36612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1205336897.23866.296.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1205336897.23866.296.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Smalley Cc: casey@schaufler-ca.com, Andrew Morton , James Morris , Paul Moore , LKML , LSM-ML , Audit-ML , Steve Grubb List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:48:17AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 08:40 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > --- Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 04:44 +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: > > > > Hi!, > > > > > > > > Setup the new Audit hooks for Smack. The AUDIT_SUBJ_USER and > > > > AUDIT_OBJ_USER SELinux flags are recycled to avoid `auditd' > > > > userspace modifications. Smack only needs auditing on > > > > a subject/object bases, so those flags were enough. > > > > > > Only question I have is whether audit folks are ok with reuse of the > > > flags in this manner, and whether the _USER flag is best suited for this > > > purpose if you are going to reuse an existing flag (since Smack label > > > seems more like a SELinux type than a SELinux user). > > > > To-mate-o toe-maht-o. > > > > There really doesn't seem to be any real reason to create a new > > flag just because the granularity is different. The choice between > > _USER and _TYPE (and _ROLE for that matter) is arbitrary from a > > functional point of view. I say that since Smack has users, but > > not types or roles, _USER makes the most sense. > > Perhaps I misunderstand, but Smack labels don't represent users (i.e. > user identity) in any way, so it seemed like a mismatch to use the _USER > flag there. Whereas types in SELinux bear some similarity to Smack > labels - simple unstructured names whose meaning is only defined by the > policy rules. > I think Casey meant the common use of Smack where a login program (openssh, bin/login, ..) sets a label for each user that logs in, thus letting each label effectively representing a user. In a sense, smack labels share a bit of _USER and _TYPE. > Regardless, it seems like the audit maintainers ought to weigh in on the > matter. > Indeed. Regards, -- "Better to light a candle, than curse the darkness" Ahmed S. Darwish Homepage: http://darwish.07.googlepages.com Blog: http://darwish-07.blogspot.com