On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:50 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2019-03-20 19:48, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 8:10 AM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > In commit fa516b66a1bf ("EVM: Allow runtime modification of the set of
> > > verified xattrs"), the call to audit_log_start() is missing a context to
> > > link it to an audit event. Since this event is in user context, add
> > > the process' syscall context to the record.
> > >
> > > In addition, the orphaned keyword "locked" appears in the record.
> > > Normalize this by changing it to "xattr=(locked)".
> > >
> > > Please see the github issue
> > > https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/109
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > security/integrity/evm/evm_secfs.c | 5 +++--
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
...
> > > @@ -222,7 +223,7 @@ static ssize_t evm_write_xattrs(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
> > > inode_lock(inode);
> > > err = simple_setattr(evm_xattrs, &newattrs);
> > > inode_unlock(inode);
> > > - audit_log_format(ab, "locked");
> > > + audit_log_format(ab, "xattr=(locked)");
> >
> > Two things come to mind:
> >
> > * While we can clearly trust the string above, should we be logging
> > the xattr field value as an untrusted string so it is consistent with
> > how we record other xattr names?
>
> That would be a question for Steve.
Yep, that's who I wanted to hear from, it's not really something I
expected you to answer Richard. I vaguely remember something about
Steve's audit libs being able to handle both trusted and untrusted
value strings for a given field, but I could have confused "able to
handle" with "don't care".
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
