From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -v2] Smack: Integrate with Audit
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <746579.84816.qm@web36612.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <1205326375.23866.215.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
Reply-To: casey@schaufler-ca.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
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 m2CFerlm021660
	for <linux-audit@redhat.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:40:53 -0400
Received: from web36612.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web36612.mail.mud.yahoo.com
	[209.191.85.29])
	by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id m2CFeLLZ020001
	for <linux-audit@redhat.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:40:21 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1205326375.23866.215.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
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: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>, "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@gmail.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, LSM-ML <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>, Audit-ML <linux-audit@redhat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com


--- Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:

>=20
> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 04:44 +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > Hi!,
> >=20
> > Setup the new Audit hooks for Smack. The AUDIT_SUBJ_USER and=20
> > AUDIT_OBJ_USER SELinux flags are recycled to avoid `auditd'=20
> > userspace modifications. Smack only needs auditing on=20
> > a subject/object bases, so those flags were enough.
>=20
> 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 thi=
s
> 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.

> Certainly will confuse matters if a user has audit filters on SELinux
> users in their /etc/audit/audit.rules and then boots a kernel with Smac=
k
> enabled.

Somehow I doubt that will be their biggest concern.


Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com