netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Audit vs netlink interaction problem
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:05:41 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47DAB065.6060804@openvz.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080314163929.GP20815@postel.suug.ch>

Thomas Graf wrote:
> * Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org> 2008-03-14 19:22
>> I've found an interesting feature of how audit uses netlink for
>> communications. Look.
>>
>> The kauditd_thread() calls netlink_unicast() and passes the 
>> audit_pid to it. The audit_pid, in turn, is received from the 
>> user space and the tool (I've checked the audit v1.6.9) uses 
>> getpid() to pass one in the kernel. Besides, this tool doesn't
>> bind the netlink socket to this id, but simply creates it 
>> allowing the kernel to auto-bind one.
>>
>> That's the preamble.
>>
>> The problem is that netlink_autobind() _does_not_ guarantees
>> that the socket will be auto-binded to the current pid. Instead
>> it uses the current pid as a hint to start looking for a free
>> id. So, in case of conflict, the audit messages can be sent
>> to a wrong socket. This can happen (it's unlikely, but can be)
>> in case some task opens more than one netlink sockets and then
>> the audit one starts - in this case the audit's pid can be busy
>> and its socket will be bound to another id.
> 
> The audit userspace tool should be fixed, no question. It can continue

Oh, this is good.
I was afraid, that we'd have to stick to this logic...

> to auto bind but must report the correct netlink pid.

Hmmm... I'm afraid, that this can break the audit filtering and signal
auditing. I haven't yet looked deep into it, but it compares the 
task->tgid with this audit_pid for different purposes. If audit_pid
changes this code will be broken.

That's why I asked David for comments.

> As a workaround: Assuming that the audit daemon is the only application
> to issue a AUDIT_SET command to set the status pid, the kernel can
> compare the netlink source pid of the AUDIT_SET message and compare it

Bu we have no the netlink socket at the moment of setting the pid to
check this. The audit_reveive_msg() call which does this set is received 
via another (pre-created global) socket.

> against the status pid provided. If they differ, issue a warning but
> use the netlink source pid thus covering the case where the auto bound
> netlink pid actually differs from the process pid.

I though, that proper behavior would be to split audit_pid, used for
filtering from the audit_nlk_pid used for netlink communications.

  reply	other threads:[~2008-03-14 17:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-14 16:22 Audit vs netlink interaction problem Pavel Emelyanov
2008-03-14 16:39 ` Thomas Graf
2008-03-14 17:05   ` Pavel Emelyanov [this message]
2008-03-14 18:29     ` Thomas Graf
2008-03-14 18:40       ` Thomas Graf
2008-03-17  8:01         ` Pavel Emelyanov
2008-03-17 19:41           ` Eric Paris
2008-03-17  7:59       ` Pavel Emelyanov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=47DAB065.6060804@openvz.org \
    --to=xemul@openvz.org \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tgraf@suug.ch \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).