On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 9:34 PM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 9:24 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2025-02-06 at 20:07 +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > > You added it in:
> > > commit 7ac86265dc8f665cc49d6e60a125e608cd2fca14
> > > Author: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Wed Oct 10 15:25:28 2012 -0400
> > >
> > > audit: allow audit code to satisfy getname requests from its names_list
> > >
> > > Do I read correctly this has no user-visible impact, but merely tries
> > > to shave off some memory usage in case of duplicated user bufs?
> > >
> > > This is partially getting in the way of whacking atomics for filename
> > > ref management (but can be worked around).
> > >
> > > AFAIU this change is not all *that* beneficial in its own right, so
> > > should not be a big deal to whack it regardless of what happens with
> > > refs? Note it would also remove some branches in the common case as
> > > normally audit either has dummy context or there is no match anyway.
> >
> >
> > (cc'ing audit folks and mailing list)
> >
> > IIRC, having duplicate audit_names records can cause audit to emit
> > extra name records in this loop in audit_log_exit():
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(n, &context->names_list, list) {
> > if (n->hidden)
> > continue;
> > audit_log_name(context, n, NULL, i++, &call_panic);
> > }
> >
> >
> > ...which is something you probably want to avoid.
>
> Well in this case I would argue the current code is buggy, unless I'm
> misunderstanding something.
>
> audit_log_name in particular logs:
> 1550 │ if (n->ino != AUDIT_INO_UNSET)
> 1551 │ audit_log_format(ab, " inode=%lu dev=%02x:%02x
> mode=%#ho ouid=%u ogid=%u rdev=%02x
> 1552 │ n->ino,
> 1553 │ MAJOR(n->dev),
> 1554 │ MINOR(n->dev),
> 1555 │ n->mode,
> 1556 │ from_kuid(&init_user_ns, n->uid),
> 1557 │ from_kgid(&init_user_ns, n->gid),
> 1558 │ MAJOR(n->rdev),
> 1559 │ MINOR(n->rdev));
>
> As in it grabs the properties of the found inode.
>
> Suppose the 2 lookups of the same path name found 2 different inodes
> as someone was mucking with the filesystem at the same time.
>
> Then this is going to *fail* to record the next inode.
>
> So if any dedup is necessary, it should be done by audit when logging imo.
>
I did more digging, audit indeed *does* handle it later in
__audit_inode(), so this does work after all.
I'm going to have to chew on it what to do here then.
--
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>
