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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E50C47257 for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 18:23:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 009D0208CA for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 18:23:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="JHmUe4o/" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727030AbgEHSXd (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2020 14:23:33 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.120]:40895 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726873AbgEHSXc (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2020 14:23:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1588962211; 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=myo8Tk8TgNvVtlGSwYNrPjsKmagFJfTNCigTo/58By4=; b=JHmUe4o/ttXy79mccQj2N1FHS33sf2+BT6Tn092KVfBVCd3VNobFm0JYtg9Fj6NNl7V7Hu bFYSLf+mvgFq07jKm/BK2c4VYtrm2QVI1Rffu+TCJYr9osFDfkeaudhwrLALXiIXlh/UQg qXbhQQSWIE6cL3VWJ2WM82r1ujpxjUw= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-245-5zrj16gVMhmfL_UvzKa_wg-1; Fri, 08 May 2020 14:23:27 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 5zrj16gVMhmfL_UvzKa_wg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBDC0107ACF9; Fri, 8 May 2020 18:23:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from x2.localnet (ovpn-113-49.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.49]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57FFA6AD1B; Fri, 8 May 2020 18:23:18 +0000 (UTC) From: Steve Grubb To: Richard Guy Briggs Cc: Paul Moore , Linux-Audit Mailing List , LKML , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, omosnace@redhat.com, fw@strlen.de, twoerner@redhat.com, Eric Paris , ebiederm@xmission.com, tgraf@infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak25 v4 3/3] audit: add subj creds to NETFILTER_CFG record to cover async unregister Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 14:23:17 -0400 Message-ID: <1894903.vQEQaK82eK@x2> Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: <20200506224233.najv6ltb5gzcicqb@madcap2.tricolour.ca> References: <3250272.v6NOfJhyum@x2> <20200506224233.najv6ltb5gzcicqb@madcap2.tricolour.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 6:42:33 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > We can't be adding deleting fields based on how its triggered. If > > > > they are unset, that is fine. The main issue is they have to behave > > > > the same. > > > > > > I don't think the intent was to have fields swing in and out depending > > > on trigger. The idea is to potentially permanently not include them in > > > this record type only. The justification is that where they aren't > > > needed for the kernel trigger situation it made sense to delete them > > > because if it is a user context event it will be accompanied by a > > > syscall record that already has that information and there would be no > > > sense in duplicating it. > > > > We should not be adding syscall records to anything that does not result > > from a syscall rule triggering the event. Its very wasteful. More > > wasteful than just adding the necessary fields. > > So what you are saying is you want all the fields that are being > proposed to be added to this record? Yes. > If the records are all from one event, they all should all have the same > timestamp/serial number so that the records are kept together and not > mistaken for multiple events. But NETFILTER_CFG is a simple event known to have only 1 record. > One reason for having information in seperate records is to be able to > filter them either in kernel or in userspace if you don't need certain > records. We can't filter out SYSCALL. -Steve