[PATCH 1/1] audit: add missing fields to AUDIT_CONFIG_CHANGE event

[Paul Moore]

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2017-10-13 21:11, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Since these are already standalone records (since the context passed to
>> > audit_log_start() is NULL) this info is necessary.
>>
>> For the record, I don't have a problem with converting standalone
>> records to syscall accompanied records if that makes sense (not all
>> audit events can be attributed to a syscall).
>
> I don't either.  I think I've fixed a couple like that in the past when
> I thought it made sense.
>
>> Looking purely at the additional information mentioned in this thread,
>> e.g. pid/uid/session/tty, it would make me believe that these records
>> *could* be accompanied by a syscall (what is the point of recording
>> that information if it isn't triggered by a syscall?).  However, I
>> can't say I've followed all the different fsnotify paths to know if
>> that is the case ... it may be a mix, and perhaps that would be an
>> argument for the logging this information in the accompanied SYSCALL
>> record (it's only recorded when it is valid).
>
> Ok, fair enough.  There are some records generated by actions that seem
> indirect for watches and trees, but I suppose they are all ultimately
> triggered by a user action...
>
> The issue I still get stuck with is how do we make sure we put in rules
> to catch all the CONFIG_CHANGE instances without getting flooded by all
> sorts of other stuff we don't want?

My opinion is that is a separate issue related to in-kernel filtering
of audit records and shouldn't affect what we do here.

>> > I'm fine with the field ordering.  If that is not acceptable, I'd
>> > recommend a new record type (AUDIT_TASK) to act as an aux record to this
>> > record that lists this information in a standard order that can be used
>> > as an aux record for all the standalone records that are missing this
>> > information.
>>
>> As I just said in the GH issue, I'm not a big fan of the aux record at
>> the moment (it seems too much of a dup with the SYSCALL record), but
>> I'm not going to rule it out.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com