[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] RFC: selinux avc trace
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 19:05:49 +0200
peter enderborg <> wrote:

> >> It should be a full structure with a lot of sub strings.  But that make is even more relevant.
> > So one event instance can have a list of strings recorded?
> Yes, it is a list very similar to a normal trace. But it is more generic.
> For example ino= is for filesystems that have inode, but for a
> violation that send a signal that make no sense at all.  Network
> addresses is in many cases not applicable. laddr= is only exist for
> for IP.
> So if you just print them it will look like:
> avc:  denied  { find } for interface=vendor.qti.hardware.perf::IPerf sid=u:r:permissioncontroller_app:s0:c230,c256,c512,c768 pid=9164 scontext=u:r:permissioncontroller_app:s0:c230,c256,c512,c768 tcontext=u:object_r:vendor_hal_perf_hwservice:s0 tclass=hwservice_manager permissive=0
>  avc:  denied  { execute } for  pid=13914 comm="ScionFrontendAp" path="/data/user_de/0/" dev="sda77" ino=204967 scontext=u:r:platform_app:s0:c512,c768 tcontext=u:object_r:privapp_data_file:s0:c512,c768 tclass=file permissive=0 ppid=788 pcomm="main" pgid=13914 pgcomm="on.updatecenter"
> It omit the fields that are not used. Some parts are common some are not. So a correct format specification for trace will be problematic if there is no "optional" field indicator.

That's all quite noisy. What is the object of these changes? What
exactly are you trying to trace and why?

-- Steve

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-30 19:17    [W:0.268 / U:14.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site