Re: [PATCH ghak109 V1] audit: link integrity evm_write_xattrs record to syscall event

[Mimi Zohar]

On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 11:22 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:

> > > > --- a/security/integrity/evm/evm_secfs.c
> > > > +++ b/security/integrity/evm/evm_secfs.c
> > > > @@ -192,7 +192,8 @@ static ssize_t evm_write_xattrs(struct file *file,
> > > > const char __user *buf,> > 
> > > >         if (count > XATTR_NAME_MAX)
> > > >         
> > > >                 return -E2BIG;
> > > > 
> > > > -       ab = audit_log_start(NULL, GFP_KERNEL,
> > > > AUDIT_INTEGRITY_EVM_XATTR);
> > > > +       ab = audit_log_start(audit_context(), GFP_KERNEL,
> > > > +                            AUDIT_INTEGRITY_EVM_XATTR);
> > > 
> > > This part is fine.
> > > 
> > > >         if (!ab)
> > > >         
> > > >                 return -ENOMEM;
> > > > 
> > > > @@ -222,7 +223,7 @@ static ssize_t evm_write_xattrs(struct file *file,
> > > > const char __user *buf,> > 
> > > >                 inode_lock(inode);
> > > >                 err = simple_setattr(evm_xattrs, &newattrs);
> > > >                 inode_unlock(inode);
> > > > 
> > > > -               audit_log_format(ab, "locked");
> > > > +               audit_log_format(ab, "xattr=(locked)");
> > > 
> > > Two things come to mind:
> > > 
> > > * While we can clearly trust the string above, should we be logging
> > > the xattr field value as an untrusted string so it is consistent with
> > > how we record other xattr names?
> > 
> > That would be a question for Steve.
> 
> All fields with the same name must be represented the same way. If one 
> instance is untrusted, every instance of the same keyword must be untrusted.

Normal case:
       audit_log_format(ab, "xattr=");
       audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, xattr->name);

Ok, so the above audit_log_format() call should be replaced with
Âaudit_log_untrustedstring().

Mimi