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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <e3e9c9da9115fd233c5a7895dbb4a698a365b1b0.1595884394.git.rgb@redhat.com>
 <CAHC9VhSx23JiN6GprskxdEcs9uftJOp03Svh7YJbQLOV91AMiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200728162722.djvy3qyclj57wsfn@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <CAHC9VhSDoi8QS3c6Wmx6agmmphja60cS3+aTKVx76xvdkxJ0DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200729020106.x5tfijvnxdmujtbj@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20200729020106.x5tfijvnxdmujtbj@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:33:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSf6eSjTvUA4FfUP+qBv_GDufBPfs=t3+BPPdFcTCD_4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3fix ghak120] audit: initialize context values in case of
 mandatory events
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc:     Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
        Linux Security Module list 
        <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:01 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-07-28 14:47, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:27 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > I know you like only really minimal fixes this late, but this seemed
> > > pretty minimal to me...
> >
> > Minimal is a one (two?) line NULL check in audit_log_name(), this
> > patch is not that.
>
> I didn't try and test that since I'm not sure that would have worked
> because there appeared to be a low non-NULL value in it.  brauer1's trace had
> 0x60 and mine had 0xd0.  Or am I missing something obvious?

Well, you mentioned the obvious already: both 0x60 and 0xd0 are not
NULL.  We already have a NULL check for context->pwd elsewhere so
there is precedence for this solving a similar problem, although
without going through the git log I'm not sure what problem that
solved, or if it was precautionary.

I agree the low value looks suspicious, it almost looks like an offset
to me, ideally it would be good to understand how/why that value is
"off'.  It could be that the audit_context is not being properly
initialized, reset, or something unrelated is clobbering the value;
all things that would be nice to know.

> The patch provided the information rather than ignoring the problem ...

I disagree.

--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com