lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH ghak25 v2 8/9] netfilter: add audit operation field
On 2020-02-13 13:34, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > The default policy is NF_ACCEPT (because Rusty didn't want
> > more email, go figure...). It occurred to me later that some table
> > loads took a command line parameter to be able to change the default
> > policy verdict from NF_ACCEPT to NF_DROP. In particular, filter FORWARD
> > hook tables. Is there a straightforward way to be able to detect this
> > in all the audit_nf_cfg() callers to be able to log it? In particular,
> > in:
> > net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c: ebt_register_table()
> > net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c: do_replace_finish()
> > net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c: __ebt_unregister_table()
> > net/netfilter/x_tables.c: xt_replace_table()
> > net/netfilter/x_tables.c: xt_unregister_table()
>
> The module parameter or the policy?
>
> The poliy can be changed via the xtables tools.
> Given you can have:
>
> *filter
> :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
> :FORWARD DROP [0:0]
> :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
> -A FORWARD -j ACCEPT
> COMMIT
>
> ... which effectily gives a FORWARD ACCEPT policy I'm not sure logging
> the policy is useful.
>
> Furthermore, ebtables has polices even for user-defined chains.
>
> > Both potential solutions are awkward, adding a parameter to pass that
> > value in, but also trying to reach into the protocol-specific entry
> > table to find that value. Would you have a recommendation? This
> > assumes that reporting that default policy value is even desired or
> > required.
>
> See above, I don't think its useful. If it is needed, its probably best
> to define an informational struct containing the policy (accept/drop)
> value for the each hook points (prerouting to postrouting), fill
> that from the backend specific code (as thats the only place that
> exposes the backend specific structs ...) and then pass that to
> the audit logging functions.

Ok, for this set, I'll drop the idea. If it becomes apparent later than
it is necessary, it can be added as a field at the end of the record.

Thanks for looking at this.

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-13 15:31    [W:0.041 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site