Re: [PATCH] audit: add MOVE_MOUNT auxiliary record to log mount relocation

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 12:01 PM Steve Grubb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 12, 2026 10:39:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time Ricardo
> Robaina wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 6:22 PM Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 1:00 PM Ricardo Robaina <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > > Modern mount tools (util-linux >= 2.39.1) use the new mount API
> > > > (fsopen, fsconfig, fsmount, move_mount) instead of the legacy mount(2)
> > > > syscall. The generic SYSCALL audit record logs the move_mount syscall
> > > > but does not capture the flags argument, creating an audit gap for
> > > > mount relocation operations.
> > > >
> > > > Add a MOVE_MOUNT auxiliary record that logs the flags argument passed
> > > > to move_mount(2). Pathnames and file descriptors are captured through
> > > > existing PATH records and SYSCALL record arguments.
> > > >
> > > >  ----
> > > >  type=PATH : item=0 name=/mnt/test_src inode=1 dev=00:41 ...
> > > >  type=SYSCALL : arch=x86_64 syscall=move_mount ...
> > > >  type=MOVE_MOUNT : fs_flags=0x4
> > > >  ----
> > > >  type=PATH : item=0 name=/mnt/test_dst inode=27460862 dev=fc:00 ...
> > > >  type=SYSCALL : arch=x86_64 syscall=move_mount ...
> > > >  type=MOVE_MOUNT : fs_flags=0x4
> > > >
> > > > Link: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/152
> > > > Link: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/153
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Robaina <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > >  fs/namespace.c             |  3 +++
> > > >  include/linux/audit.h      | 10 ++++++++++
> > > >  include/uapi/linux/audit.h |  1 +
> > > >  kernel/auditsc.c           | 13 +++++++++++++
> > > >  4 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing this patch, Paul!
> >
> > > This is because we only log the first four syscall parameters,
> > > correct?  To put this another way, if we logged all six syscall
> > > parameters this wouldn't be an issue, yes?
> >
> > Yes, that's correct.
>
> I've been aiming to reply to this and lost the original...in the case of
> mmap, yes. If we had just 5 of the passed values, we would not need a
> supplemental record just to record the fd.
>
> However, in many other syscalls, we only have pointers. Sometimes syscalls
> are designed to pass a structure with config items where some are security
> relevant. In those cases having all the args doesn't help and we still need
> the supplemental record.

True, but that is independent of logging all of the syscall
parameters.  In my opinion only logging the first four was a terrible
mistake (I know you disagree Steve) and I'd just assume we correct
that before we add an auxiliary record.

-- 
paul-moore.com