Re: [PATCH ghak25 v4 3/3] audit: add subj creds to NETFILTER_CFG record to cover async unregister

[Paul Moore]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:33 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2020-04-29 14:47, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 10:31:46 AM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > On 2020-04-28 18:25, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 5:40 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > > > Some table unregister actions seem to be initiated by the kernel to
> > > > > garbage collect unused tables that are not initiated by any userspace
> > > > > actions.  It was found to be necessary to add the subject credentials
> > > > > to  cover this case to reveal the source of these actions.  A sample
> > > > > record:
> > > > >   type=NETFILTER_CFG msg=audit(2020-03-11 21:25:21.491:269) : table=nat
> > > > >   family=bridge entries=0 op=unregister pid=153 uid=root auid=unset
> > > > >   tty=(none) ses=unset subj=system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0
> > > > >   comm=kworker/u4:2 exe=(null)>
> > > > [I'm going to comment up here instead of in the code because it is a
> > > > bit easier for everyone to see what the actual impact might be on the
> > > > records.]
> > > >
> > > > Steve wants subject info in this case, okay, but let's try to trim out
> > > > some of the fields which simply don't make sense in this record; I'm
> > > > thinking of fields that are unset/empty in the kernel case and are
> > > > duplicates of other records in the userspace/syscall case.  I think
> > > > that means we can drop "tty", "ses", "comm", and "exe" ... yes?
> > >
> > > From the ghak28 discussion, this list and order was selected due to
> > > Steve's preference for the "kernel" record convention, so deviating from
> > > this will create yet a new field list.  I'll defer to Steve on this.  It
> > > also has to do with the searchability of fields if they are missing.
> > >
> > > I do agree that some fields will be superfluous in the kernel case.
> > > The most important field would be "subj", but then "pid" and "comm", I
> > > would think.  Based on this contents of the "subj" field, I'd think that
> > > "uid", "auid", "tty", "ses" and "exe" are not needed.
> >
> > 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.

Yes, exactly.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com