From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D9FAECAAD1 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 21:25:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232316AbiHaVZ1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2022 17:25:27 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51160 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232274AbiHaVZX (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2022 17:25:23 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92AB654C87 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:25:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1661981120; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Bk+OPu/NawbDQQta/l48V8vREhMx8JycdlrQ1DTyT80=; b=fvTrvhRfw+XcjNFEAKWMbWRd7mF8zHvolxJcoDtutgoC0pb5P4MBqK+2CvrNRw+GA1wflM MAzqpQ4tsX0BYOK7Gtu2Dd5xcyOfcdUjH6JT1OCWjjsGgCFMWGtqAGAazjBkX4QxG6+znX /OJpJ3AEvNxG/M4cpmziel7sIpFK7uo= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-216-sTGYnmzPOG6-e8ra5mqDsw-1; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 17:25:17 -0400 X-MC-Unique: sTGYnmzPOG6-e8ra5mqDsw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C102985A585; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 21:25:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from x2.localnet (unknown [10.22.33.226]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A3232026D4C; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 21:25:16 +0000 (UTC) From: Steve Grubb To: Paul Moore , Richard Guy Briggs Cc: Linux-Audit Mailing List , LKML , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris , Jan Kara , Amir Goldstein Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] fanotify,audit: Allow audit to use the full permission event response Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 17:25:15 -0400 Message-ID: <12063373.O9o76ZdvQC@x2> Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.4 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 5:07:25 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c > > > index 433418d73584..f000fec52360 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/auditsc.c > > > +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c > > > @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ > > > #include > > > #include > > > #include // struct open_how > > > +#include > > > > > > #include "audit.h" > > > > > > @@ -2899,10 +2900,34 @@ void __audit_log_kern_module(char *name) > > > context->type = AUDIT_KERN_MODULE; > > > } > > > > > > -void __audit_fanotify(u32 response) > > > +void __audit_fanotify(u32 response, size_t len, char *buf) > > > { > > > - audit_log(audit_context(), GFP_KERNEL, > > > - AUDIT_FANOTIFY, "resp=%u", response); > > > + struct fanotify_response_info_audit_rule *friar; > > > + size_t c = len; > > > + char *ib = buf; > > > + > > > + if (!(len && buf)) { > > > + audit_log(audit_context(), GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_FANOTIFY, > > > + "resp=%u fan_type=0 fan_info=?", response); > > > + return; > > > + } > > > + while (c >= sizeof(struct fanotify_response_info_header)) { > > > + friar = (struct fanotify_response_info_audit_rule > > > *)buf; > > > > Since the only use of this at the moment is the > > fanotify_response_info_rule, why not pass the > > fanotify_response_info_rule struct directly into this function? We > > can always change it if we need to in the future without affecting > > userspace, and it would simplify the code. > > Steve, would it make any sense for there to be more than one > FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_AUDIT_RULE header in a message? Could there be more > than one rule that contributes to a notify reason? If not, would it be > reasonable to return -EINVAL if there is more than one? I don't see a reason for sending more than one header. What is more probable is the need to send additional data in that header. I was thinking of maybe bit mapping it in the rule number. But I'd suggest padding the struct just in case it needs expanding some day. -Steev