mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
	casey.schaufler@intel.com, jmorris@namei.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-audit@redhat.com, keescook@chromium.org,
	penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp,
	stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v35 25/29] Audit: Allow multiple records in an audit_buffer
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 12:01:13 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <508ba368-630e-3a57-d128-a77a0dd16ee4@canonical.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhRX+VSw+-PsCwhHceQ9MpE4E-D-OnaO0CGqar44xc3a1w@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/26/22 11:12, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:06 PM John Johansen
> <john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote:
>> On 4/18/22 07:59, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>> Replace the single skb pointer in an audit_buffer with
>>> a list of skb pointers. Add the audit_stamp information
>>> to the audit_buffer as there's no guarantee that there
>>> will be an audit_context containing the stamp associated
>>> with the event. At audit_log_end() time create auxiliary
>>> records (none are currently defined) as have been added
>>> to the list.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
>>
>> I agree with Paul that audit_buffer_aux_new() and
>> audit_buffer_aux_end() belong in this patch
>>
>>
>>> ---
>>>  kernel/audit.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
>>> index 6b6c089512f7..4d44c05053b0 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/audit.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/audit.c
>>> @@ -197,8 +197,10 @@ static struct audit_ctl_mutex {
>>>   * to place it on a transmit queue.  Multiple audit_buffers can be in
>>>   * use simultaneously. */
>>>  struct audit_buffer {
>>> -     struct sk_buff       *skb;      /* formatted skb ready to send */
>>> +     struct sk_buff       *skb;      /* the skb for audit_log functions */
>>> +     struct sk_buff_head  skb_list;  /* formatted skbs, ready to send */
>>>       struct audit_context *ctx;      /* NULL or associated context */
>>> +     struct audit_stamp   stamp;     /* audit stamp for these records */
>>>       gfp_t                gfp_mask;
>>>  };
>>>
>>> @@ -1765,10 +1767,13 @@ __setup("audit_backlog_limit=", audit_backlog_limit_set);
>>>
>>>  static void audit_buffer_free(struct audit_buffer *ab)
>>>  {
>>> +     struct sk_buff *skb;
>>> +
>>>       if (!ab)
>>>               return;
>>>
>>> -     kfree_skb(ab->skb);
>>> +     while((skb = skb_dequeue(&ab->skb_list)))
>>> +             kfree_skb(skb);
>>
>> we still have and ab->skb can we have a debug check that its freed by walking the queue?
> 
> By definition ab->skb is always going to point at something on the
> list, if it doesn't we are likely to have failures elsewhere.  The
> structure definition is private to kernel/audit.c and the
> allocation/creation is handled by an allocator function which always
> adds the new skb to the list so I think we're okay.
> 
yeah I got that eventually, though it wasn't immediately obvious

> We could add additional checks, but with audit performance already a
> hot topic I would prefer to draw the debug-check line at input coming
> from outside the audit subsystem.
> 
and that is why I asked for a debug check. But its not a hard requirement
just a nice to have because I have been bitten by internal consistency
issues all to often.


  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-26 19:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20220418145945.38797-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com>
2022-04-18 14:59 ` [PATCH v35 00/29] LSM: Module stacking for AppArmor Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 01/29] integrity: disassociate ima_filter_rule from security_audit_rule Casey Schaufler
2022-04-21 16:51     ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 02/29] LSM: Infrastructure management of the sock security Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 03/29] LSM: Add the lsmblob data structure Casey Schaufler
2022-04-26 23:15     ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 04/29] LSM: provide lsm name and id slot mappings Casey Schaufler
2022-04-21 16:50     ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 05/29] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs Casey Schaufler
2022-04-21 16:50     ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 06/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_audit_rule_match Casey Schaufler
2022-04-21 16:49     ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 07/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_kernel_act_as Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 08/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secctx_to_secid Casey Schaufler
2022-04-27  0:38     ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 09/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 10/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_ipc_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 11/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_current_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 12/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_inode_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 13/29] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_cred_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 18:02     ` kernel test robot
2022-04-19  0:41     ` kernel test robot
2022-04-19  0:51     ` kernel test robot
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 14/29] LSM: Specify which LSM to display Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 15/29] LSM: Ensure the correct LSM context releaser Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 16/29] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 17/29] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_inode_getsecctx Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 18/29] LSM: security_secid_to_secctx in netlink netfilter Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 19/29] NET: Store LSM netlabel data in a lsmblob Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 20/29] binder: Pass LSM identifier for confirmation Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 21/29] LSM: Extend security_secid_to_secctx to include module selection Casey Schaufler
2022-04-25 23:32     ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 22/29] Audit: Keep multiple LSM data in audit_names Casey Schaufler
2022-04-25 23:32     ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 17:57       ` Paul Moore
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 23/29] Audit: Create audit_stamp structure Casey Schaufler
2022-04-25 23:31     ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 18:03       ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26 18:58         ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 19:18           ` Paul Moore
2022-04-27 15:49             ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-27 16:02               ` Paul Moore
2022-04-27 20:55                 ` Casey Schaufler
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 24/29] LSM: Add a function to report multiple LSMs Casey Schaufler
2022-04-22 16:26     ` Paul Moore
2022-04-25 23:33     ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 25/29] Audit: Allow multiple records in an audit_buffer Casey Schaufler
2022-04-22 16:27     ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26  1:06     ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 18:12       ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26 19:01         ` John Johansen [this message]
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 26/29] Audit: Add record for multiple task security contexts Casey Schaufler
2022-04-22 16:28     ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26  1:08     ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 18:15       ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26 19:07         ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 27/29] Audit: Add record for multiple object contexts Casey Schaufler
2022-04-22 16:29     ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26  3:37     ` John Johansen
2022-04-26 18:57       ` Paul Moore
2022-04-26 19:24         ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 28/29] LSM: Add /proc attr entry for full LSM context Casey Schaufler
2022-04-22  8:37     ` John Johansen
2022-04-18 14:59   ` [PATCH v35 29/29] AppArmor: Remove the exclusive flag Casey Schaufler

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=508ba368-630e-3a57-d128-a77a0dd16ee4@canonical.com \
    --to=john.johansen@canonical.com \
    --cc=casey.schaufler@intel.com \
    --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®