| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTPTwW9bPZR1wTUk6Bb-rCDSbOYSyiUbSvZmHV8garJVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:40:49 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: rgb@...hat.com
Cc: containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-audit@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
luto@...nel.org, carlos@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, simo@...hat.com,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 02/10] audit: add container id
Ooops, I hit send prematurely on this :/ My comments below should
stand, but for things like this I usually try to get through the
entire patchset before sending my comments as later patches can affect
my comments on the earlier patches.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 3:38 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:11 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Implement the proc fs write to set the audit container identifier of a
> > process, emitting an AUDIT_CONTAINER_OP record to document the event.
> >
> > This is a write from the container orchestrator task to a proc entry of
> > the form /proc/PID/audit_containerid where PID is the process ID of the
> > newly created task that is to become the first task in a container, or
> > an additional task added to a container.
> >
> > The write expects up to a u64 value (unset: 18446744073709551615).
> >
> > The writer must have capability CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL.
> >
> > This will produce a record such as this:
> > type=CONTAINER_ID msg=audit(2018-06-06 12:39:29.636:26949) : op=set opid=2209 old-contid=18446744073709551615 contid=123456 pid=628 auid=root uid=root tty=ttyS0 ses=1 subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 comm=bash exe=/usr/bin/bash res=yes
>
> You need to update the record type in the example above.
>
> > The "op" field indicates an initial set. The "pid" to "ses" fields are
> > the orchestrator while the "opid" field is the object's PID, the process
> > being "contained". Old and new audit container identifier values are
> > given in the "contid" fields, while res indicates its success.
>
> I understand Steve's concern around the "op" field, but I think it
> might be a bit premature to think we might not need to do some sort of
> audit container ID management in the future that would want to make
> use of the CONTAINER_OP message type. I would like to see the "op"
> field preserved.
>
> > It is not permitted to unset the audit container identifier.
> > A child inherits its parent's audit container identifier.
> >
> > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/90
> > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/issues/51
> > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-testsuite/issues/64
> > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/wiki/RFE-Audit-Container-ID
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
> > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
> > Acked-by: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > fs/proc/base.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/audit.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++
> > include/uapi/linux/audit.h | 2 ++
> > kernel/auditsc.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 4 files changed, 131 insertions(+)
>
> ...
>
> > @@ -2112,6 +2114,72 @@ int audit_set_loginuid(kuid_t loginuid)
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > + * audit_set_contid - set current task's audit_context contid
> > + * @contid: contid value
> > + *
> > + * Returns 0 on success, -EPERM on permission failure.
> > + *
> > + * Called (set) from fs/proc/base.c::proc_contid_write().
> > + */
> > +int audit_set_contid(struct task_struct *task, u64 contid)
> > +{
> > + u64 oldcontid;
> > + int rc = 0;
> > + struct audit_buffer *ab;
> > + uid_t uid;
> > + struct tty_struct *tty;
> > + char comm[sizeof(current->comm)];
> > +
> > + task_lock(task);
> > + /* Can't set if audit disabled */
> > + if (!task->audit) {
> > + task_unlock(task);
> > + return -ENOPROTOOPT;
> > + }
> > + oldcontid = audit_get_contid(task);
> > + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>
> I assume lockdep was happy with nesting the tasklist_lock inside the task lock?
>
> > + /* Don't allow the audit containerid to be unset */
> > + if (!audit_contid_valid(contid))
> > + rc = -EINVAL;
> > + /* if we don't have caps, reject */
> > + else if (!capable(CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL))
> > + rc = -EPERM;
> > + /* if task has children or is not single-threaded, deny */
> > + else if (!list_empty(&task->children))
> > + rc = -EBUSY;
> > + else if (!(thread_group_leader(task) && thread_group_empty(task)))
> > + rc = -EALREADY;
> > + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> > + if (!rc)
> > + task->audit->contid = contid;
> > + task_unlock(task);
> > +
> > + if (!audit_enabled)
> > + return rc;
> > +
> > + ab = audit_log_start(audit_context(), GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_CONTAINER_OP);
> > + if (!ab)
> > + return rc;
> > +
> > + uid = from_kuid(&init_user_ns, task_uid(current));
> > + tty = audit_get_tty(current);
> > + audit_log_format(ab, "op=set opid=%d old-contid=%llu contid=%llu pid=%d uid=%u auid=%u tty=%s ses=%u",
> > + task_tgid_nr(task), oldcontid, contid,
> > + task_tgid_nr(current), uid,
> > + from_kuid(&init_user_ns, audit_get_loginuid(current)),
> > + tty ? tty_name(tty) : "(none)",
> > + audit_get_sessionid(current));
> > + audit_put_tty(tty);
> > + audit_log_task_context(ab);
> > + audit_log_format(ab, " comm=");
> > + audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, get_task_comm(comm, current));
> > + audit_log_d_path_exe(ab, current->mm);
> > + audit_log_format(ab, " res=%d", !rc);
> > + audit_log_end(ab);
> > + return rc;
> > +}
>
> --
> paul moore
> www.paul-moore.com
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists