On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 14:55:53 +0800
hujianyang <hujianyang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> commit 33e2208acfc1
>
> audit: vfs: fix audit_inode call in O_CREAT case of do_last
>
> fix a regression in auditing of open(..., O_CREAT) syscalls but
> import a new problem which lead the records of write operation
> confusion.
>
> This error can be reproduced by these steps:
>
> touch /etc/test
> echo "-w /etc/test" >>/etc/audit/audit.rules
> /etc/init.d/auditd restart
>
> echo "abc" >> /etc/test
>
> audit_name records are:
>
> type=PATH msg=audit(1409764556.196:67): item=0 name="/etc/" inode=5097 dev=00:01 mode=040755 ouid=0 ogid=0 rdev=00:00 nametype=PARENT
> type=PATH msg=audit(1409764556.196:67): item=1 name=(null) inode=23161 dev=00:01 mode=0100644 ouid=0 ogid=0 rdev=00:00 nametype=NORMAL
> type=PATH msg=audit(1409764556.196:67): item=2 name=(null) inode=23161 dev=00:01 mode=0100644 ouid=0 ogid=0 rdev=00:00 nametype=NORMAL
>
> but if we revert commit 33e2208acfc1, records are correct:
>
> type=PATH msg=audit(1409763058.192:219): item=0 name="/etc/test" inode=1275 dev=00:01 mode=0100644 ouid=0 ogid=0 rdev=00:00 nametype=NORMAL
>
> We shouldn't leave audit_inode(.., LOOKUP_PARENT) in O_CREAT case
> of do_last() because this branch don't really know if vfs need to
> create a new file. There is no need to do vfs_create() if we open
> an existing file with O_CREAT flag and write to it. But this
> audit_inode() in O_CREAT case will record a msg as we create a new
> file and confuse the records of write.
>
> This patch moves the audit for create operation to where a file
> really need to be created, the O_CREAT case in lookup_open().
> We have to add the pointer of struct filename as a parameter of
> lookup_open(). By doing this, the records of both create and write
> are correct.
>
> Signed-off-by: hujianyang <hujianyang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/namei.c | 9 ++++++---
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
> index a996bb4..0bc7734 100644
> --- a/fs/namei.c
> +++ b/fs/namei.c
> @@ -2808,7 +2808,8 @@ looked_up:
> static int lookup_open(struct nameidata *nd, struct path *path,
> struct file *file,
> const struct open_flags *op,
> - bool got_write, int *opened)
> + bool got_write, int *opened,
> + struct filename *name)
> {
> struct dentry *dir = nd->path.dentry;
> struct inode *dir_inode = dir->d_inode;
> @@ -2854,6 +2855,9 @@ static int lookup_open(struct nameidata *nd, struct path *path,
> error = -EROFS;
> goto out_dput;
> }
> +
> + audit_inode(name, dir, LOOKUP_PARENT);
> +
> *opened |= FILE_CREATED;
> error = security_path_mknod(&nd->path, dentry, mode, 0);
> if (error)
> @@ -2926,7 +2930,6 @@ static int do_last(struct nameidata *nd, struct path *path,
> if (error)
> return error;
>
> - audit_inode(name, dir, LOOKUP_PARENT);
> error = -EISDIR;
> /* trailing slashes? */
> if (nd->last.name[nd->last.len])
> @@ -2945,7 +2948,7 @@ retry_lookup:
> */
> }
> mutex_lock(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex);
> - error = lookup_open(nd, path, file, op, got_write, opened);
> + error = lookup_open(nd, path, file, op, got_write, opened, name);
> mutex_unlock(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex);
>
> if (error <= 0) {
I'm not sure about this. Won't this cause us to miss creating audit
records in some error conditions?
For instance, if you end up not being able to create the file due to
the fs being read-only, then I think this patch would make you miss the
audit record for the parent.
Might it be better to not plumb an extra pointer into lookup_open and
just move the audit_inode calls around do_last in the appropriate
places instead?
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
