Unique audit record type ranges for individual LSMs

Steve Grubb sgrubb at redhat.com
Tue Dec 12 03:42:41 UTC 2017

On Monday, December 11, 2017 3:56:35 PM EST Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 12/11/2017 7:44 AM, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 1:47:43 PM EST Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >>> While it will be potentially painful to switch, the AppArmor project is
> >>> considering to use a unique range in order for audit-userspace to
> >>> support AppArmor audit records. IMHO, SMACK would be free to continue
> >>> using 1400-1499 as long as they don't need audit-userspace support and
> >>> SELinux would continue using 1400-1499.
> >> 
> >> Aside from the comment that says 1400-1499 are for SELinux, and the three
> >> events (1400-1402) that are SELinux specific, the events really are
> >> general. Why not add the AppArmor specifics to the 1400 range? Give them
> >> a generic sounding name and you'll achieve consistency. Change the
> >> comment to say "Security Module use" instead of "SELinux use".
> > 
> > I really don't know what the status is for user space support on the other
> > LSMs. I couldn't tell you if the searching/reporting are broken or working
> > just fine.
> Understood. And it's only going to get worse with module stacking.
> > Additionally, there is auditctl which has very selinux specific field
> > options to audit on a variety of pieces of the labels. Does this make
> > sense for other LSMs? Do other LSMs have different needs? I really have
> > no idea.
> Three of the record types are SELinux specific. Nine are netlabel, which are
> not SELinux specific, or at least shouldn't be. Three are about setting
> state. We could have different audit records for Smack setting netlabel
> maps from the one SELinux uses, but that seems wrong.

I'd also be open to defining a block for generic messages and a couple small 
blocks (10 or so) for LSM specific events. By defining a new event type, it 
allows you to express the information specific to a LSM without having to 
conform to all other LSMs.

> > But one thing for sure...if we combine them all, I expect patches are
> > needed for user space. By separating them out by event number or some
> > identifier like lsm=, then we can have lsm specific fixups if necessary.
> It seems to me that adding proper support for security modules
> other than SELinux is going to be a project. That's true regardless
> of how the messages are numbered and whether or not we have generic
> messages.

First step would be to either add lsm= to all audit events from LSM's or 
define blocks each will use. It might be best to add the lsm= field if we have 
standard events across all LSMs. Then at some future date we can start using 
that to do something smart with the extra info. But knowing which LSM emitted 
the event is important to cleaning this up.

Also...auditctl issue seems to be glossed over. Do other LSMs have auditing 
needs related to rules + labeling the LSM may do?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list