Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:23:29 -0400 | From | Linda Knippers <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH -v2] Smack: Integrate with Audit |
| |
Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 08:40 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> --- Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 04:44 +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: >>>> Hi!, >>>> >>>> Setup the new Audit hooks for Smack. The AUDIT_SUBJ_USER and >>>> AUDIT_OBJ_USER SELinux flags are recycled to avoid `auditd' >>>> userspace modifications. Smack only needs auditing on >>>> a subject/object bases, so those flags were enough. >>> Only question I have is whether audit folks are ok with reuse of the >>> flags in this manner, and whether the _USER flag is best suited for this >>> purpose if you are going to reuse an existing flag (since Smack label >>> seems more like a SELinux type than a SELinux user). >> To-mate-o toe-maht-o. >> >> There really doesn't seem to be any real reason to create a new >> flag just because the granularity is different. The choice between >> _USER and _TYPE (and _ROLE for that matter) is arbitrary from a >> functional point of view. I say that since Smack has users, but >> not types or roles, _USER makes the most sense. > > Perhaps I misunderstand, but Smack labels don't represent users (i.e. > user identity) in any way, so it seemed like a mismatch to use the _USER > flag there. Whereas types in SELinux bear some similarity to Smack > labels - simple unstructured names whose meaning is only defined by the > policy rules. > > Regardless, it seems like the audit maintainers ought to weigh in on the > matter.
I don't count as an audit maintainer but I think as long as the man page is updated to say something other than:
subj_user Program's SE Linux User
then its fine for multiple LSMs to use the same rule flags and its better than inventing new ones for each LSM. I don't have an opinion on which flag that's currently specific to SELinux should be recycled but I think the manpage could be made more generic for all of them.
>>> Certainly will confuse matters if a user has audit filters on SELinux >>> users in their /etc/audit/audit.rules and then boots a kernel with Smack >>> enabled. >> Somehow I doubt that will be their biggest concern.
I agree.
-- ljk >
| |