linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH ghak32 V2 05/13] audit: add containerid support for ptrace and signals

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:13:37 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc:     cgroups@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com, luto@...nel.org,
        jlayton@...hat.com, carlos@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, simo@...hat.com,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, serge@...lyn.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH ghak32 V2 05/13] audit: add containerid support for
 ptrace and signals

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 2018-04-18 20:32, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:00 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:

...

>> >  /*
>> >   * audit_log_container_info - report container info
>> > - * @tsk: task to be recorded
>> >   * @context: task or local context for record
>> > + * @op: containerid string description
>> > + * @containerid: container ID to report
>> >   */
>> > -int audit_log_container_info(struct task_struct *tsk, struct audit_context *context)
>> > +int audit_log_container_info(struct audit_context *context,
>> > +                             char *op, u64 containerid)
>> >  {
>> >         struct audit_buffer *ab;
>> >
>> > -       if (!audit_containerid_set(tsk))
>> > +       if (!cid_valid(containerid))
>> >                 return 0;
>> >         /* Generate AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO with container ID */
>> >         ab = audit_log_start(context, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO);
>> >         if (!ab)
>> >                 return -ENOMEM;
>> > -       audit_log_format(ab, "contid=%llu", audit_get_containerid(tsk));
>> > +       audit_log_format(ab, "op=%s contid=%llu", op, containerid);
>> >         audit_log_end(ab);
>> >         return 0;
>> >  }
>>
>> Let's get these changes into the first patch where
>> audit_log_container_info() is defined.  Why?  This inserts a new field
>> into the record which is a no-no.  Yes, it is one single patchset, but
>> they are still separate patches and who knows which patches a given
>> distribution and/or tree may decide to backport.
>
> Fair enough.  That first thought went through my mind...  Would it be
> sufficient to move that field addition to the first patch and leave the
> rest here to support trace and signals?

I should have been more clear ... yes, that's what I was thinking; the
record format is the important part as it's user visible.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com