Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:14:30 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] AUDIT: audit when fcaps increase the permitted or inheritable capabilities |
| |
Quoting Andrew G. Morgan (morgan@kernel.org): > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > [s/viro@...ok/viro@...uk/] > > Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > >> Logging execve()s where there is only an increase in capabilities seems > >> wrong to me. To me it seems equally important to log any event where an > >> execve() yields pP != 0. > > > > True. > > > > ... except if (!issecure(SECURE_NOROOT) && uid==0) I guess? > > > > And then it also might be interesting in the case where > > (!issecure(SECURE_NOROOT) && uid==0) and pP is not full. > > I guess so, although this seems like a case of being interested in a > (unusual) non-privileged execve().
I'm not sure what you mean - but this can only happen if bits are taken out of the capability bounding set, right?
> >>> rc = bprm_caps_from_vfs_caps(&vcaps, bprm); > >>> > >>> + audit_log_bprm_fcaps(bprm, &vcaps); > >>> + > >> When rc != 0, the execve() will fail. Is it appropriate to log in this case? > > > > It might fail because fP contains bits not in pP', right? That's > > probably interesting to auditors. > > In which case, how is the fact it didn't execute captured in the audit log?
I assume as a FAIL? (Not sure of the exact wording in the logs)
-serge
| |