On Wed 06-09-17 13:34:32, Steve Grubb wrote: > Hello Jan, > > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 12:48:21 PM EDT Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 06-09-17 10:35:32, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 5:18:22 AM EDT Jan Kara wrote: > > > > Or is it that for CCrequirements you have to implement some deamon which > > > > will arbitrate access using fanotify and you need to have decisions > > > > logged using kernel audit interface? > > > > > > Yes. And even virus scanners would probably want to allow admins to pick > > > when they record something being blocked. > > > > But then if I understand it correctly, you would need to patch each and > > every user of fanotify permission events to know about FAN_AUDIT to meet > > those CC requirements? > > Not really. For CC, the mechanism just needs to be available. > > > That seems pretty hard to do to me and even it done, it sounds like quite a > > bit of duplication? > > AFAIK, there is only one that needs to get patched. It's totally opt in. I see. Thanks for explanation. But still, for this feature to make a real difference, you'll have to implement FAN_AUDIT (and corresponding filtering) in all programs using fanotify permission events on your system, won't you? Otherwise decisions from those programs won't get logged and you'll have incomplete information which presumably breaks audit requirements. > > So wouldn't it be better design to pipe all fanotify access decisions to > > audit subsystem which would based on policy decide whether the event should > > be logged or not? > > There can be a lot of information to wade through. Normally, we don't parse > events in the kernel or user space. They are in a race to keep events flowing > so that the kernel stays fast and responsive. There are buffer limits where if > we too far behind we start losing events. The decision to log should be rare. > So, if we get lots of events that don't need to be logged, it will slow down > the whole kernel. > > But besides the performance side of it, the audit subsystem has part of the > information to make a decision on whether or not this one should be logged. It > doesn't know the same information as the daemon that is deciding to grant > access. Only the daemon granting access knows if this one file alone should > get an audit record. And based on the fanotify API there is no way to pass > along additional information that could be taken into account by the audit > subsystem for its decision. Ok, I think I'm starting to understand this. The audit event about fanotify refusing the access is generally a supplemental information to another event informing about access being denied, isn't it? So you want to log it if and only if denied access event will be logged. Am I getting it right? So the application handling fanotify permission events would parse audit rules in /etc/audit.rules, decide whether its decision would lead to event being logged and if yes, it would set FAN_AUDIT in its response so that supplemental information is also logged. Right? > > I assume something like this must be working when access > > is denied e.g. because of file permissions? And again I appologize for my > > total ignorance of how audit works... > > We have control over that, too. You can audit all EPERM events or you can be > selective about getting them from a specific directory, application, user, or > MAC label. To get this kind of granularity would mean making another filter in > the kernel and loading a set of rules which duplicates, for the most part, the > rules the access daemon has. Then we'd still need the identifier saying the > event originated from the fanotify subsystem. This leads to a lot more > complexity. OK, understood. But with FAN_AUDIT design, you still have to duplicate this functionality - in each application using fanotify permission events which wants to be conformant to CC criteria if I understand things right. Sure it is different from duplicating in the kernel, you can have shared libraries helping with this etc. But still it doesn't look like an ideal situation? One idea I had was: Couldn't we store fanotify decision in audit_context and then if we find event needs to be emitted, we also additionally emit the fact that fanotify is the reason? > As it stands, the patch set adds 24 lines of code. So, its much more > minimalistic and places the decision in the only thing that truly knows if an > event is needed. But let's examine that a bit. > > The user space daemon could also directly log an event through the user space > API. But, it would need to gather a lot of information to fully identify the > subject and objects in the event. There is a size limit on how big an event > could be. So, if we have a file that is at PATH_MAX and has control characters > in it, we would need 8192 bytes to log the filename. Add in the MAC labels and > other house keeping and we have less than 100 bytes to log information. > > This also means we need to make new parsers and design reporting to make sense > of this new record format. So, due to these size limits, it more robust to > generate the record in the kernel and coopt all the reporting mechanisms that > are already in place. > > So, to sum it up, doing it this was is better performance for the kernel, only > needs 24 or so additional lines of code in the kernel, only 4 lines in the > user space daemon, and 4 lines in the user space audit code. Its the simplest > approach with the best targeting of events. > > Does this help? Thanks for detailed explanation! So I'm not at all concerned about complexity of the kernel patch - you are right it is trivial. My concern is more that this adds userspace visible API so once we add it, we have to maintain it forever. So I'd like to get the API right (so that we don't have to add new API for the same thing in a few years) - filesystem notification interfaces are an area where we particularly suffer from API design mistakes - even the third incarnation of the API (fanotify) is not ideal... I understand the difficulty of associating fanotify response with the object (and thus other audit events) from userspace. So I agree that doesn't look like an easier way to go. On the other hand bear in mind there can be several processes mediating access through fanotify and you can end up with supplemental messages like (expanding your example): type=FANOTIFY msg=audit(1504310584.332:290): resp=1 type=FANOTIFY msg=audit(1504310584.332:290): resp=1 type=FANOTIFY msg=audit(1504310584.332:290): resp=1 type=FANOTIFY msg=audit(1504310584.332:290): resp=2 (or possibly without the FAN_ALLOW messages - do we want to log those?) and you have no way to determine which process actually denied the access. I'm not sure whether this matters or not but I can imagine some users complaining about this so I wanted to point that out. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
