Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/7] audit: Fix inode numbers

Paul Moore
2024-10-14T23:36:44Z

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 9:30 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 05:34:21PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 11:26 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Use the new inode_get_ino() helper to log the user space's view of
> > > inode's numbers instead of the private kernel values.
> > >
> > > Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> > > Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
> > > ---
> > > security/lsm_audit.c | 10 +++++-----
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > While answering some off-list questions regarding audit, I realized
> > we've got similar issues with audit_name->ino and audit_watch->ino.
> > It would be nice if you could also fix that in this patchset.
>
> I can do that with the next version, but I'm wondering how it would fit
> with the UAPI's struct audit_rule_data which has only 32-bit
> fields/values.

Don't worry about audit_rule_data for the moment, that's obviously
going to require a userspace update as well to supply 64-bit inode
numbers. My guess is we'll probably want to introduce a new field
type, e.g. AUDIT_INODE64 or similar, that either carries the high
32-bits and is used in conjunction with AUDIT_INODE, or we create the
new AUDIT_INODE64 field as a "special" filter field which takes up two
of the u32 value spots. Regardless, let's not worry about that for
this patchset and focus on ensuring the underlying kernel filtering
and reporting mechanisms work as expected so that when we do sort out
the UAPI issues everything *should* work.

> Does 64-bit inode filtering currently work?

Likely not :/

--
paul-moore.com