From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Andrew G. Morgan" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] AUDIT: audit when fcaps increase the permitted or inheritable capabilities Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:13:59 -0700 Message-ID: <48FFFA07.3060707@kernel.org> 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> <20081022141430.GB21612@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081022141430.GB21612@us.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: Eric Paris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, sgrubb@redhat.com List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >>> ... 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? Yes, it can happen as you say. This is a case of an unprivileged uid==0 execution. Since we don't appear to want to audit other non-privileged execve()s, its not clear to me that this one deserves attention. >>>>> 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) OK. As long as its clearly identified as a failure and the logs are not misleading - making it look like the execve() succeeded with privilege - then I'm not as concerned. Cheers Andrew -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI//oF+bHCR3gb8jsRAjZxAKCoSXL7CwTfQJt7Wn55nT8MwHbiEgCcD+Qm VVHHZ9QiInaVb2faUt9Q77E= =gJU0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----