Re: AUDIT_NETFILTER_PKT message format

Paul Moore
2017-01-18T12:32:43Z

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2017-01-17 21:34, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
>> On 2017-01-17 15:17, Paul Moore wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > On 2017-01-17 08:55, Steve Grubb wrote:
>> > >> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 12:25:51 AM EST Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > >> > Ones that are not so straightforward:
>> > >> > - "secmark" depends on a kernel config setting, so should it always be
>> > >> > present but "(none)" if that kernel feature is compiled out?
>> > >>
>> > >> If this is selinux related, I'd treat it the same way that we do subj
>> > >> everywhere else.
>> > >
>> > > Ok.
>> >
>> > To be clear, a packet's secmark should be recorded via a dedicated
>> > field, e.g. "secmark", and not use the "subj" field (it isn't a
>> > subject label in the traditional sense).
>>
>> I think Steve was talking about if, when or where to include that field,
>> not what its label is.
>
> In this case it is an "obj=" field, but since it is part of the LSM,
> each one has its own fields.

As I said above, use a "secmark" field and not the subject or object
fields; packet labeling is rather complex and there is value in
differentiating between secmark labels and network peer labels.

--
paul moore
security @ redhat