Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, omosnace@redhat.com, fw@strlen.de,
        twoerner@redhat.com, Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, tgraf@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak25 v4 3/3] audit: add subj creds to NETFILTER_CFG record to cover async unregister
Date:   Fri, 08 May 2020 14:23:17 -0400
Message-ID: <1894903.vQEQaK82eK@x2>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <20200506224233.najv6ltb5gzcicqb@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
References: <cover.1587500467.git.rgb@redhat.com> <3250272.v6NOfJhyum@x2> <20200506224233.najv6ltb5gzcicqb@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 6:42:33 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > We can't be adding deleting fields based on how its triggered. If
> > > > they are unset, that is fine. The main issue is they have to behave
> > > > the same.
> > > 
> > > I don't think the intent was to have fields swing in and out depending
> > > on trigger.  The idea is to potentially permanently not include them in
> > > this record type only.  The justification is that where they aren't
> > > needed for the kernel trigger situation it made sense to delete them
> > > because if it is a user context event it will be accompanied by a
> > > syscall record that already has that information and there would be no
> > > sense in duplicating it.
> > 
> > We should not be adding syscall records to anything that does not result
> > from a syscall rule triggering the event. Its very wasteful. More
> > wasteful than just adding the necessary fields.
> 
> So what you are saying is you want all the fields that are being
> proposed to be added to this record?

Yes.

> If the records are all from one event, they all should all have the same
> timestamp/serial number so that the records are kept together and not
> mistaken for multiple events.

But NETFILTER_CFG is a simple event known to have only 1 record.

> One reason for having information in seperate records is to be able to
> filter them either in kernel or in userspace if you don't need certain
> records.

We can't filter out SYSCALL.

-Steve