Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1584480281.git.rgb@redhat.com> <13ef49b2f111723106d71c1bdeedae09d9b300d8.1584480281.git.rgb@redhat.com>
 <20200318131128.axyddgotzck7cit2@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20200318131128.axyddgotzck7cit2@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:22:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTdLZop0eT11H4uSXRj5M=kBet=GkA8taDwGN_BVMyhrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak25 v3 3/3] audit: add subj creds to NETFILTER_CFG
 record to cover async unregister
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc:     Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, twoerner@redhat.com,
        Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>, fw@strlen.de,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, tgraf@infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:12 AM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2020-03-17 17:30, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > Some table unregister actions seem to be initiated by the kernel to
> > garbage collect unused tables that are not initiated by any userspace
> > actions.  It was found to be necessary to add the subject credentials to
> > cover this case to reveal the source of these actions.  A sample record:
> >
> >   type=NETFILTER_CFG msg=audit(2020-03-11 21:25:21.491:269) : table=nat family=bridge entries=0 op=unregister pid=153 uid=root auid=unset tty=(none) ses=unset subj=system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 comm=kworker/u4:2 exe=(null)
>
> Given the precedent set by bpf unload, I'd really rather drop this patch
> that adds subject credentials.
>
> Similarly with ghak25's subject credentials, but they were already
> present and that would change an existing record format, so it isn't
> quite as justifiable in that case.

Your comments have me confused - do you want this patch (v3 3/3)
considered for merging or no?

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com