On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 17:56 -0500, John Dennis wrote:
> The format of audit messages from the kernel is a mess. The
> bottom line is one cannot parse the audit messages without special
> case knowledge of each audit message because the data formatting does
> not follow any regular rules.
>
> I don't know how it got this way, but it really needs to be fixed.
>
> The primary offense is string formatting, specifically the use or
> non-use of the functions audit_log_hex() audit_log_untrustedstring(),
> and audit_log_n_untrustedstring(); depending on circumstances.
>
> The net result is a field value might be one of the following cases:
>
> 1) a string without quotes (maybe a string, maybe an int, etc.)
>
> 2) a string enclosed in quotes (implies a string with no escaped chars)
>
> 3) a string which is represented as a sequence of hex values (not
> enclosed in quotes, but how do you distinguish this from case 1?)
I'm certainly not going to argue this isn't problomatic. I believe that
case #1 should go away. Maybe when I get back from Chile I'll get a
chance to look at that. Some fields just aren't ever strings, so I
don't see a need to waste time/space writing " around something I know
is always an int. But if the field can be a string it should ALWAYS be
either case 2 or 3.
>
> Given the name=value formatting it is absolutely impossible to
> correctly interpret the value component unless you know how
> audit_log_format was invoked to generate the name=value pair. This
> will be dependent on the kernel version, the field name, and the audit
> record type. To be specific, during parsing only case 2 is
> unambiguous. You cannot determine between case 1 and case
> 3. Heuristics based on each character being in the hexadecimal
> character set fail for a significant subset of data, thus you don't
> know if the value is a string encoded in hexadecimal which needs to be
> decoded or a string which happens to be composed of hexadecimal
> characters but is not encoded.
It "shouldn't" depend on the kernel version, but I'm sure it does. I'm
going to work on eliminating case 1, which makes a lot of this mute.
> The answer is to make the output parsable without special case
> knowledge. It would appear many of these problems were introduced with
> the functions audit_log_hex() audit_log_untrustedstring(), and
> audit_log_n_untrustedstring() which attempt to correct for a double
> quote, white space, or non-printable character in the output
> string. However these are not used uniformly nor do they follow any
> common approach for string representations in user land (why not?).
What approach would you like when I try to audit binary data? You want
me to start adding \x before every byte? Forget it, waste of space.
> All field values without exception need to be enclosed in quotes to
> delimit the value. Special characters inside the quotes need to
> be escaped, following some standard convention. Please, lets not
> invent a new encoding, this problem has already been solved
> elsewhere many times before!
I don't want to waste time/effort having to write res="1" when I can
just say res=1. I know you are complaining that you have to look at
message type, field name, and kernel version. My opinion, you should
just have to look at field name. We know res!="happy go lucky" so lets
just print that int and move along. I certainly agree though that res
needs to be consistant across all message types.
>
> Also note the function audit_log_n_untrustedstring() in audit.c has a
> bug and ignores the len parameter (it iterates till it finds a NULL
> terminator even though it's supposed to stop after n chars).
Check the audit tree, I pretty much rewrote all of these and will be in
linus's tree as soon as al pushes them...
> Suggested Fix:
> --------------
>
> Most of these problems can easily be fixed if there is exactly one
> central place to format an audit field value. The function
> audit_log_vformat() could very easily ensure consistent formatting via
> % format specifiers in the format string, e.g.:
>
> audit_log_format("n=%d path=%s", n, path);
>
> Building audit output piecewise would be deprecated, e.g. these types
> of sequences would be eliminated.
>
> audit_log_format(ab, " n=%d", n);
> audit_log_format(ab, " name=");
> audit_log_foo();
>
> and replaced with:
>
> audit_log_format(ab, " n=%d name=%s", foo_to_string(foo));
>
> Whenever audit_log_vformat() encounters a % format specifier it
> formats to a string, then it converts the string to an escaped quoted
> string, and then inserts the escaped quoted string into the buffer
> (e.g. n="123" name="foo bar\n" )
>
> This way the formatting is consistent, easy to apply, and is never
> special cased by the caller.
>
> There are no performance penalties of any note, calling a routine to
> escape only needs to be done when the format specifier is %s. Currently
> this is already done for a subset of output strings, so all we're doing
> is removing the responsibility for escaping from the caller and doing
> it consistently instead of in a subset of cases.
I've got no problems eliminating all of the %s in the code and making
everything go through audit_log_string()
>
> I don't really care what the encoding is. I only care that it is an
> encoding with wide support. Backslash quoting is very popular,
> familiar and has many implementations. The MIME quoted-printable
> transfer encoding would be another option but might pose some problems
> with line endings. I think backslash quoting would be a good choice. I
> suspect everyone reading this message already knows exactly how to
> interpret a string with backslash escapes.
My take, if the field name is something that can be a string you either
get field="string" or you get field=737472696e67. Either way its easy
to recognize. Quotes means string, no quotes means hex.
> Auparse is not the answer:
> --------------------------
>
> Auparse is not the answer to irregular kernel audit message
> formatting. First of all it forces auparse to have special case logic
> which is not 100% robust and is tied to the kernel source code
> version.
Like I said, I wish this wasn't true. Do you have an example so I can
learn from past mistakes?
> --------------
>
> If we do fix the format of audit messages we might as well fix some
> other inconsistencies at the same time.
>
> 1) The initial part of AVC messages do not follow the standard
> name=value formatting used everywhere else in audit.
>
> a) It includes the string "avc:" which is redundant with the audit
> record type (e.g. type=AVC), the string "avc:" should be removed,
> it serves no purpose and only makes parsing much harder because of
> the inconsistency.
>
> b) denied|granted are bare words without a field name, it should be
> seresult="denied", once again to avoid special case parsing.
>
> c) The list of operations are enclosed in curly braces {} without a
> field name, this should be seperms=xxx, where xxx is a list. The
> use of curly braces to encode a list in audit data is unique. We
> should define how any audit message should encode a list of values
> and use that consistently for all audit data. While one could
> define a syntax such as "[value1, value2]" or some such, it might
> be informative to look at how other transfer mechanisms such as
> structured markup and ldap handle this case. They both utilize the
> concept of multi-valued attributes. Thus there is no list
> structure, but an attribute is allowed to repeat itself and in the
> process implicitly creates a list of values for the attribute. Thus
> {read write} might be represented as seperms="read"
> seperms="write". This regularity makes parsing much easier, it
> avoids special case syntax.
While I have no problem with changing this, I'm not going to rewrite all
of the documentation on how to read selinux messages nor am I going to
rewrite all of the tools that parse/use selinux messages. SELinux is a
user of the audit system and in my opinion should get to use it wants to
use it. SELinux has had this syntax long before audit was a twinkle in
Rik Faith's eye. What are you going to do when 'unknown kernel module
X' decides to use the audit subsystem and they don't follow your
name/value pair rules?
Audit tools needs to learn to deal with messages that are not from the
audit system (external audit users like selinux and unknown kernel
modules). Most likely by seeing the type=field and realizing this isn't
from audit so I may not understand. Tools that parse selinux messages
need to fully parse and understand selinux messages. Tools that parse
audit messages need to fully parse and understand audit messages. I
think this is 2 different operations.
> The formatting of name/value pairs in the kernel must be fixed, it is
> simply impossible to correctly parse in it's current state.
name/value pairs from the audit system itself I completely agree with.
Trying to force an external user of the audit system into the 'audit
way' doesn't make sense. Why is the audit system trying to parse those
message anyway? Its not actually a message from the audit system, its a
message from selinux.
--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
