Re: 3.6-rc4 audit_log_d_path oops.

[Kees Cook]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 09:32:49AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>  > > I just realised, the funny thing about this is that the machine running that test
>  > > had selinux/audit disabled. And yet here we are, screwing around with audit buffers.
>  >
>  > The intent was to have this message show up in dmesg even if auditd
>  > wasn't running, and even if the specific process wasn't being
>  > explicitly audited.
>  >
>  > > Should there be a test on audit_enable=0 in audit_log_link_denied() ?
>  > >
>  > > I'm now curious how much more of the audit code is getting run through similar lack of tests
>  >
>  > What is the condition in which audit_log_start fails?
>
> in the case of that oops, given I had booted with audit=0, I suspect it was hitting the first check...
>
> 1157         if (audit_initialized != AUDIT_INITIALIZED)
> 1158                 return NULL;

Ah-ha, okay. Yeah, I'm fine with the fix you had. If _start fails, just return.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/