From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] AUDIT: audit when fcaps increase the permitted or
	inheritable capabilities
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:14:30 -0500
Message-ID: <20081022141430.GB21612@us.ibm.com>
References: <20081020222538.3895.50175.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com>
	<20081020222612.3895.6710.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com>
	<48FD6E49.6060104@kernel.org> <20081021191625.GA4657@us.ibm.com>
	<48FF21BF.9090509@kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <48FF21BF.9090509@kernel.org>
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: "Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

Quoting Andrew G. Morgan (morgan@kernel.org):
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> [s/viro@...ok/viro@...uk/]
> 
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> Logging execve()s where there is only an increase in capabilities seems
> >> wrong to me. To me it seems equally important to log any event where an
> >> execve() yields pP != 0.
> > 
> > True.
> > 
> > ... except if (!issecure(SECURE_NOROOT) && uid==0) I guess?
> > 
> > And then it also might be interesting in the case where
> > (!issecure(SECURE_NOROOT) && uid==0) and pP is not full.
> 
> I guess so, although this seems like a case of being interested in a
> (unusual) non-privileged execve().

I'm not sure what you mean - but this can only happen if bits are taken
out of the capability bounding set, right?

> >>>  	rc = bprm_caps_from_vfs_caps(&vcaps, bprm);
> >>>  
> >>> +	audit_log_bprm_fcaps(bprm, &vcaps);
> >>> +
> >> When rc != 0, the execve() will fail. Is it appropriate to log in this case?
> > 
> > It might fail because fP contains bits not in pP', right?  That's
> > probably interesting to auditors.
> 
> In which case, how is the fact it didn't execute captured in the audit log?

I assume as a FAIL?  (Not sure of the exact wording in the logs)

-serge