[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150515023221.GC965@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 22:32:21 -0400
From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
To: Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
Cc: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com,
eparis@...isplace.org, arozansk@...hat.com, serge@...lyn.com,
zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 05/10] audit: log creation and deletion of namespace
instances
On 15/05/14, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:57:14 AM Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 03:57:59 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > On 15/05/05, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > > I think there needs to be some more discussion around this. It seems
> > > > like this is not exactly recording things that are useful for audit.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that either audit has to assemble that information, or
> > > the kernel has to do so. The kernel doesn't know about containers
> > > (yet?).
> >
> > Auditing is something that has a lot of requirements imposed on it by
> > security standards. There was no requirement to have an auid until audit
> > came along and said that uid is not good enough to know who is issuing
> > commands because of su or sudo. There was no requirement for sessionid
> > until we had to track each action back to a login so we could see if the
> > login came from the expected place.
> >
> > What I am saying is we have the same situation. Audit needs to track a
> > container and we need an ID. The information that is being logged is not
> > useful for auditing. Maybe someone wants that info in syslog, but I doubt
> > it. The audit trail's purpose is to allow a security officer to reconstruct
> > the events to determine what happened during some security incident.
>
> As Eric, and others, have stated, the container concept is a userspace idea,
> not a kernel idea; the kernel only knows, and cares about, namespaces. This
> is unlikely to change.
>
> However, as Steve points out, there is precedence for the kernel to record
> userspace tokens for the sake of audit. Personally I'm not a big fan of this
> in general, but I do recognize that it does satisfy a legitimate need. Think
> of things like auid and the sessionid as necessary evils; audit is already
> chock full of evilness I doubt one more will doom us all to hell.
>
> Moving forward, I'd like to see the following:
>
> * Record the creation/removal/mgmt of the individual namespaces as Richard's
> patchset currently does. However, I'd suggest using an explicit namespace
> value for the init namespace instead of the "unset" value in the V6 patchset
> (my apologies if you've already changed this Richard, I haven't looked at V7
> yet).
The "unset" (none) value is only there before the first namespaces have
been created. After that, any new ones are created relative to the init
namespace of that type.
> * Create a container ID token (unsigned 32-bit integer?), similar to
> auid/sessionid, that is set by userspace and carried by the kernel to be used
> in audit records. I'd like to see some discussion on how we manage this, e.g.
> how do handle container ID inheritance, how do we handle nested containers
> (setting the containerid when it is already set), do we care if multiple
> different containers share the same namespace config, etc.?
(Addressed in another reply.) Nested will need some careful thought...
> * When userspace sets the container ID, emit a new audit record with the
> associated namespace tokens and the container ID.
That was the goal of AUDIT_VIRT_CONTROL or AUDIT_NS_INFO messages from
userspace into the kernel.
> * Look at our existing audit records to determine which records should have
> namespace and container ID tokens added. We may only want to add the
> additional fields in the case where the namespace/container ID tokens are not
> the init namespace.
If we have a record that ties a set of namespace IDs with a container
ID, then I expect we only need to list the containerID along with auid
and sessionID.
> Can we all live with this? If not, please suggest some alternate ideas;
> simply shouting "IT'S ALL CRAP!" isn't helpful for anyone ... it may be true,
> but it doesn't help us solve the problem ;)
Thanks Paul.
> paul moore
- RGB
--
Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@...hat.com>
Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists