> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Smalley [mailto:sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 12:12 PM > To: Roberts, William C; seandroid-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: av_decision on audit callback > > On 10/02/2015 02:54 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > On 10/02/2015 02:48 PM, Roberts, William C wrote: > >> I would like to be able to gather the result of permissive mode per > >> domain from a check_access() call for the userspace object managers > >> on Android. > >> > >> From what I can tell check_access() calls avc_has_perm with a NULL > >> 5th argument. That argument is for the struct avc_entry_ref. > >> > >> That structure has a pointer to an opaque type, avc_entry. Which > >> contains struct av_decision. > >> > >> Which contains flags that have a permissive flag: > >> > >> struct av_decision { > >> > >> access_vector_t allowed; > >> > >> access_vector_t decided; > >> > >> access_vector_t auditallow; > >> > >> access_vector_t auditdeny; > >> > >> unsigned int seqno; > >> > >> unsigned int flags; > >> > >> }; > >> > >> /* Definitions of av_decision.flags */ > >> > >> #define SELINUX_AVD_FLAGS_PERMISSIVE 0x0001 > >> > >> It looks like if check_access just passes this structure and then > >> avc_has_perm() when it calls avc_audit, it could supply the > >> av_decision structure to the avc_suppl_audit() call. We could then > >> have an audit2 callback that takes this parameter. > >> > >> Is this mostly right, seem sane? Better way to do this? > > > > It doesn't need to be exposed at that level; the libselinux > > avc_audit() routine can log it, similar to what is done in the kernel. > > It already has the av_decision structure available to it. > > To clarify, anything directly known to the AVC, like the permissive flag, can be > directly logged by it. The audit callback is for logging auxiliary audit information > not known to the AVC (the pid of the client process being a good example). I was wondering if we could just dump permissive=0|1 from the AVC logging routine, but that would affect everyone. I guess then you would be ok with that? Does order matter with the fields wrt parsing? I don't want to break any desktop tooling I am aware of, would we upstream this change as well? _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
