Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 14/10/21, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 03:56:10 PM Steve Grubb wrote: > > audit_log_task_info logs too much information for typical use. There are > > times when you might want to know everything about what's connecting. But > > in this case, we don't need anything about

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 14/10/21, Eric Paris wrote: > On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 17:08 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On 14/10/21, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 03:03:14 PM Eric Paris wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:23 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > > Log the event when a

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Paul Moore
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 06:30:29 PM Eric Paris wrote: > I've always hated the fact that we include this in ANY current audit > message. I truly believe we need two new record types. > > AUDIT_PROCESS_INFO > AUDIT_EXTENDED_PROCESS_INFO > > What does my UID have to do with a syscall? Why is

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Paul Moore
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 03:56:10 PM Steve Grubb wrote: > audit_log_task_info logs too much information for typical use. There are > times when you might want to know everything about what's connecting. But > in this case, we don't need anything about groups, saved uids, fsuid, or > ppid. > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Eric Paris
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 17:08 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > On 14/10/21, Steve Grubb wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 03:03:14 PM Eric Paris wrote: > > > On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:23 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > Log the event when a client attempts to connect to the netlink

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Steve Grubb
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 05:08:22 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > On 14/10/21, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > super crazy yuck. audit_log_task_info() ?? > > > > audit_log_task_info logs too much information for typical use. There are > > times when you might want to know everything about what's

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 14/10/21, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 03:03:14 PM Eric Paris wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:23 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > Log the event when a client attempts to connect to the netlink audit > > > multicast socket, requiring CAP_AUDIT_READ capability,

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Steve Grubb
On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 03:03:14 PM Eric Paris wrote: > On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:23 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > Log the event when a client attempts to connect to the netlink audit > > multicast socket, requiring CAP_AUDIT_READ capability, binding to the > > AUDIT_NLGRP_READLOG

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 14/10/07, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > On 14/10/07, Eric Paris wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:23 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > Log the event when a client attempts to connect to the netlink audit > > > multicast > > > socket, requiring CAP_AUDIT_READ capability, binding to the >

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 14/10/07, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: On 14/10/07, Eric Paris wrote: On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:23 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: Log the event when a client attempts to connect to the netlink audit multicast socket, requiring CAP_AUDIT_READ capability, binding to the

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Steve Grubb
On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 03:03:14 PM Eric Paris wrote: On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:23 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: Log the event when a client attempts to connect to the netlink audit multicast socket, requiring CAP_AUDIT_READ capability, binding to the AUDIT_NLGRP_READLOG group. Log

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 14/10/21, Steve Grubb wrote: On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 03:03:14 PM Eric Paris wrote: On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:23 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: Log the event when a client attempts to connect to the netlink audit multicast socket, requiring CAP_AUDIT_READ capability, binding to

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Steve Grubb
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 05:08:22 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: On 14/10/21, Steve Grubb wrote: super crazy yuck. audit_log_task_info() ?? audit_log_task_info logs too much information for typical use. There are times when you might want to know everything about what's connecting.

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Eric Paris
On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 17:08 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: On 14/10/21, Steve Grubb wrote: On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 03:03:14 PM Eric Paris wrote: On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:23 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: Log the event when a client attempts to connect to the netlink audit

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Paul Moore
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 03:56:10 PM Steve Grubb wrote: audit_log_task_info logs too much information for typical use. There are times when you might want to know everything about what's connecting. But in this case, we don't need anything about groups, saved uids, fsuid, or ppid. Its a

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Paul Moore
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 06:30:29 PM Eric Paris wrote: I've always hated the fact that we include this in ANY current audit message. I truly believe we need two new record types. AUDIT_PROCESS_INFO AUDIT_EXTENDED_PROCESS_INFO What does my UID have to do with a syscall? Why is it in

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 14/10/21, Eric Paris wrote: On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 17:08 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: On 14/10/21, Steve Grubb wrote: On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 03:03:14 PM Eric Paris wrote: On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:23 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: Log the event when a client attempts to

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-21 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 14/10/21, Paul Moore wrote: On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 03:56:10 PM Steve Grubb wrote: audit_log_task_info logs too much information for typical use. There are times when you might want to know everything about what's connecting. But in this case, we don't need anything about groups,

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-11 Thread Paul Moore
On Saturday, October 11, 2014 11:42:06 AM Steve Grubb wrote: > On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 18:06:51 -0400 > > Paul Moore wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 03:39:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > I also thought of moving audit_log_task() from auditsc.c to audit.c > > > and using that. For that

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-11 Thread Steve Grubb
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 18:06:51 -0400 Paul Moore wrote: > On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 03:39:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > I also thought of moving audit_log_task() from auditsc.c to audit.c > > and using that. For that matter, both audit_log_task() and > > audit_log_task_info() could use

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-11 Thread Steve Grubb
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 18:06:51 -0400 Paul Moore pmo...@redhat.com wrote: On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 03:39:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: I also thought of moving audit_log_task() from auditsc.c to audit.c and using that. For that matter, both audit_log_task() and audit_log_task_info()

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-11 Thread Paul Moore
On Saturday, October 11, 2014 11:42:06 AM Steve Grubb wrote: On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 18:06:51 -0400 Paul Moore pmo...@redhat.com wrote: On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 03:39:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: I also thought of moving audit_log_task() from auditsc.c to audit.c and using that.

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-07 Thread Paul Moore
On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 03:39:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > I also thought of moving audit_log_task() from auditsc.c to audit.c > and using that. For that matter, both audit_log_task() and > audit_log_task_info() could use audit_log_session_info(), but they are > in slightly different

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-07 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 14/10/07, Eric Paris wrote: > On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:23 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > Log the event when a client attempts to connect to the netlink audit > > multicast > > socket, requiring CAP_AUDIT_READ capability, binding to the > > AUDIT_NLGRP_READLOG > > group. Log the

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-07 Thread Eric Paris
On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:23 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > Log the event when a client attempts to connect to the netlink audit multicast > socket, requiring CAP_AUDIT_READ capability, binding to the > AUDIT_NLGRP_READLOG > group. Log the disconnect too. > > Sample output: > time->Tue Oct

[RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-07 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
Log the event when a client attempts to connect to the netlink audit multicast socket, requiring CAP_AUDIT_READ capability, binding to the AUDIT_NLGRP_READLOG group. Log the disconnect too. Sample output: time->Tue Oct 7 14:15:19 2014 type=UNKNOWN[1348] msg=audit(1412705719.316:117): auid=0

[RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-07 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
Log the event when a client attempts to connect to the netlink audit multicast socket, requiring CAP_AUDIT_READ capability, binding to the AUDIT_NLGRP_READLOG group. Log the disconnect too. Sample output: time-Tue Oct 7 14:15:19 2014 type=UNKNOWN[1348] msg=audit(1412705719.316:117): auid=0

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-07 Thread Eric Paris
On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:23 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: Log the event when a client attempts to connect to the netlink audit multicast socket, requiring CAP_AUDIT_READ capability, binding to the AUDIT_NLGRP_READLOG group. Log the disconnect too. Sample output: time-Tue Oct 7

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-07 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 14/10/07, Eric Paris wrote: On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:23 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: Log the event when a client attempts to connect to the netlink audit multicast socket, requiring CAP_AUDIT_READ capability, binding to the AUDIT_NLGRP_READLOG group. Log the disconnect too.

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: log join and part events to the read-only multicast log socket

2014-10-07 Thread Paul Moore
On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 03:39:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: I also thought of moving audit_log_task() from auditsc.c to audit.c and using that. For that matter, both audit_log_task() and audit_log_task_info() could use audit_log_session_info(), but they are in slightly different order