[audit] Upstream solution for auditing file system objects
From: Timothy Chavez
Date: Thu Dec 09 2004 - 19:03:53 EST
I'm writing this e-mail to facilitate some discussion on an audit
feature for inclusion to the mainline kernel's audit subsysystem.
I've written out a "brief" description of the problem with some of the
associated problems it introduces and some of the outlines of
potential solutions below. For the most part, the idea stays the
same, and the mechanism we use to implement it varies.
This message is fairly long. My apologies.
Over the last two months, I've been given the daunting task of
implementing a feature by which an administrator can specify from user
space, a list of file system objects (namely regular files and
directories) that he/she wishes to audit. The administrator would
presumably like to,
1. Specify a file, "/etc/shadow"
2. Filter based on some criteria, "I only care if /etc/shadow is
open()'d by uid=X" (Filtering could be more granular then this or
less, that's arbitrary at this point)
3. Be reassured that one may not bypass the audit subsystem nor lose
an audit record.
Assuming we can do the filtering aspect in user space via auditd (or
whatever), we've introduced some kernel work. For instance, when we
say we want to audit a file or directory, what we're really saying is,
"I'm interested in knowing when X syscall accesses/alters Y
file/directory, so send me a record of this activity."
Some notable design problems to introduce now are with the "identity"
of Y file/directory with respect to the kernel. In fact, we only
really care about paths of which file/directory Y completes. I.e: If
we want to audit /etc/shadow, we might not care if /etc/shadow is
moved to /tmp/shadow. This means that any access/alteration of
/tmp/shadow would go unnoticed (unless otherwise specified). However,
if /tmp/shadow were a hardlink to /etc/shadow, we would then still
care, because we are still effectively /etc/shadow... if that makes
These are things that our design must consider in some way.
1. Identifying a file, such as /etc/shadow, solely by a pathname,
enables someone to create a hardlink to /etc/shadow from a different
directory and by-pass the audit subsystem. Also, we can't assume we
have this user space definition of a file/directory in the kernel.
2. Identifying a file, such as /etc/shadow, solely by its inode,
enables a by-pass of the audit subsystem, when say, /etc/shadow gets
copied to /etc/shadow+ and moved back. Because the inode has changed,
we're no longer the "same" file system object. Similarly, if we
delete an audited file, /tmp/ultra_secret (in /tmp? sounds like my old
university), and recreate it, we'd like /tmp/ultra_secret to be
audited. This falls back on the "we don't want audit records to be
3. How do we treat mounts and --bind mounts? I won't go into this in
this e-mail. There's several design decisions to made with regards to
4. How can we obtain the full path of the file system object without
reconstructing it in the kernel? Xattrs? Integer cookies/hashes that
key a table in user space?
5. Whats the best approach at capturing information about the syscall
accessing / altering the file/directory? We might lose records if we
attempt to capture this information from VFS hooks as we could
short-circuit before we ever reached that point in the function. We'd
then need a way of related the audit of a system call that in place
now with the file/directory its accessing. (This particiular issue is
not talked about in this e-mail in any detail, really)
The current audit subsystem does not contain this capability. This
capability is essential for meeting Controlled Access Protection
Profile (CAPP) Evaluation Assurance Level (EAL) 4+ requirements.
(These are brief notes. More implementation detail can be provided it
asked for. If someone is interested in discussing an actual solution,
we can get into that - I'd like to get into that. I'm just trying to
give you a sense of some of the things that have been thought about).
1. Inotify. Inotify implements a good portion of what we'd like to do
and looks like its well on its way into the mainline kernel. What
would need to be added to inotify:
A. A way in which it could, if desired, auto-watch the file/directory
associated with an IN_CREATE_FILE/SUBDIR event. This would also
require we have some way to communicate , "We want this
<file/directory> to be auto-watched" -- There might be an issue here
because we're now giving meaning to the file/directory name associated
with the inode. We're now saying, "If the inode changes, but the name
associated with it is the same, watch the new inode automatically."
B. Inotify would have to be able to notify the audit subsystem of
events via a direct call internally, when the event is triggered.
You'd have some device with an "audit" flag on it that says, "Hey I'm
interested in receiving events on behalf of audit, send them to me,
and I'll pass them directly on to the audit subsystem." This would be
fairly easy to do, but would undermine the inotify event queuing
process because we could not take any chances of losing event records
in a queue that's overflowed.
2. Linux Security Module. This is perhaps the most daunting
approach. This solution would allow us to use the i_security field of
the inode to do our "book keeping." We'd also have at our disposal
the the security hooks already in-place in the VFS. This would allow
us to intercept the relevant syscalls via function pointers, to make
decisions on what we want to do. Using the i_security field to hold
our table of auditable files/directories on parent directory inodes,
would enable us to ask the question, "Does this file/directory that's
just been created beneath me need to be marked as "auditable?" from
with in, say, security_inode_post_create().
The advantages to a module is that we can make this audit option
more... optional. We're not introducing any new hooks and we're using
the LSM's inode i_security field, too. This keeps the inode
structure's size flat and minimizes our impact in the VFS.
Disadvantages are that for it to play nicely with other LSMs like
SELinux, we'd need the LSM stacker or else we'd need to disable
SELinux. We'd also be forcing the question, "Is this an appropriate
use of the LSM framework?" Although this feature is definitely
security-relevant and related, is what it does an appropriate context
for use of the LSM framework? Some would say that the LSM framework
is for Access Control only, others would disagree.
3. SELinux. This feature is not currently in SELinux (as we've been
told), but we've had interest by the NSA in implementing this feature
for SELinux. We'd have a similar solution to the LSM, except we'd
encapsulate ourselves within SELinux, and use its framework to drive
the solution. This might prove less resilient, politically, because
we'd be under its umbrella. I'm not clear on the exact implementation
of this in SELinux -- It sounds like it'd be a patch to the security
server and hooks, the creation of an audit label, and the invention of
some additional structure for "book keeping" purposes. Also, there is
a general problem with using SELinux specifically with figuring out
how to certify with it enabled. There's a lot of complications
(mostly unknowns) -- Complications we'd willingly work on, if need be.
Obviously design decisions would have to be factor in as well.
4. Audit subsystem. To me, this is the best solution (maybe even
worst solution? we'll see what you have to say), but probably the
nastiest one. Let the audit subsystem hook VFS in all the necessary
places and give audit an inode field to do the "book keeping." The
advantages here is that we're encapsulating ourselves as much as
possible in the audit subsystem and not depending on any other
subsystem except for the one constant in all our solutions, VFS. If
we were given the "go ahead" or some fuzzy feeling that this would be
the best approach/attempt, we could implement this feature in the
audit subsystem. The disadvantages are fairly clear. If this feature
were configured Y, the inode structure would grow in size and if this
were an inode field, we'd be keeping a list of "names," on it. We'd
also be introducing yet another set of hooks to VFS which have a very
specific use. And, on the kernel-side, we'd essentially be
duplicating some of inotify's behavior.
However, the most obvious gain here, is that the subsystem is
centralized and its intentions are clearer.
5. Kprobes. I know nothing about them. These have not been
considered, but were mentioned to me just recently by two different
people. I'm not sure if this approach could be useful or not. Any
Your feedback is essential to figuring out what the best way to
approach this is. Thanks for reading :-)
- Timothy R. Chavez
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/