linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 03/10] audit: log container info of syscalls

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]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhScaG8aOFYRV5hPXEKob1QRth5YFEbHNY=ZgKKAKxBBsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Oct 2018 16:40:19 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     rgb@...hat.com
Cc:     sgrubb@...hat.com, simo@...hat.com, carlos@...hat.com,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
        linux-audit@...hat.com, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, luto@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 03/10] audit: log container info of syscalls

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 1:38 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 2018-10-25 17:57, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:27:32 -0400
> > Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-10-25 06:49, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:06 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 20:42:55 -0400
> > > > > Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 2018-10-24 16:55, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:15 AM Richard Guy Briggs
> > > > > > > <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2018-10-19 19:16, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 4:32 AM Richard Guy Briggs
> > > > > > > > > <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > > > > > + * audit_log_contid - report container info
> > > > > > > > > > + * @tsk: task to be recorded
> > > > > > > > > > + * @context: task or local context for record
> > > > > > > > > > + * @op: contid string description
> > > > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > > > +int audit_log_contid(struct task_struct *tsk,
> > > > > > > > > > +                            struct audit_context
> > > > > > > > > > *context, char *op) +{
> > > > > > > > > > +       struct audit_buffer *ab;
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +       if (!audit_contid_set(tsk))
> > > > > > > > > > +               return 0;
> > > > > > > > > > +       /* Generate AUDIT_CONTAINER record with
> > > > > > > > > > container ID */
> > > > > > > > > > +       ab = audit_log_start(context, GFP_KERNEL,
> > > > > > > > > > AUDIT_CONTAINER);
> > > > > > > > > > +       if (!ab)
> > > > > > > > > > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > > > > +       audit_log_format(ab, "op=%s contid=%llu",
> > > > > > > > > > +                        op, audit_get_contid(tsk));
> > > > > > > > > > +       audit_log_end(ab);
> > > > > > > > > > +       return 0;
> > > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_contid);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As discussed in the previous iteration of the patch, I
> > > > > > > > > prefer AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID here over AUDIT_CONTAINER.  If
> > > > > > > > > you feel strongly about keeping it as-is with
> > > > > > > > > AUDIT_CONTAINER I suppose I could live with that, but it
> > > > > > > > > is isn't my first choice.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't have a strong opinion on this one, mildly
> > > > > > > > preferring the shorter one only because it is shorter.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We already have multiple AUDIT_CONTAINER* record types, so it
> > > > > > > seems as though we should use "AUDIT_CONTAINER" as a prefix
> > > > > > > of sorts, rather than a type itself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm fine with that.  I'd still like to hear Steve's input.  He
> > > > > > had stronger opinions than me.
> > > > >
> > > > > The creation event should be separate and distinct from the
> > > > > continuing use when its used as a supplemental record. IOW,
> > > > > binding the ID to a container is part of the lifecycle and needs
> > > > > to be kept distinct.
> > > >
> > > > Steve's comment is pretty ambiguous when it comes to AUDIT_CONTAINER
> > > > vs AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID, but one could argue that AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID
> > > > helps distinguish the audit container id marking record and gets to
> > > > what I believe is the spirit of Steve's comment.  Taking this in
> > > > context with my previous remarks, let's switch to using
> > > > AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID.
> > >
> > > I suspect Steve is mixing up AUDIT_CONTAINER_OP with
> > > AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID, confusing the fact that they are two seperate
> > > records.  As a summary, the suggested records are:
> > >     CONTAINER_OP    audit container identifier creation
> > >     CONTAINER       audit container identifier aux record to an
> > > event
> > >
> > > and what Paul is suggesting (which is fine by me) is:
> > >     CONTAINER_OP    audit container identifier creation event
> > >     CONTAINER_ID    audit container identifier aux record to
> > > an event
> > >
> > > Steve, please indicate you are fine with this.
> >
> > I thought it was:
>
> It *was*.  It was changed at Paul's request in this v3 thread:
>         https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2018-July/msg00087.html
>
> And listed in the examples and changelog to this v4 patchset:
>         https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2018-July/msg00178.html
>
> It is also listed in this userspace patchset update v4 (which should
> also have had a changelog added to it, note to self...):
>         https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2018-July/msg00189.html
>
> I realize it is hard to keep up with all the detail changes in these
> patchsets...
>
> > CONTAINER_ID audit container identifier creation event
> > CONTAINER audit container identifier aux record to an event
> >
> > Or vice versa. Don't mix up creation of the identifier with operations.
>
> Exactly what I'm trying to avoid...  Worded another way: "Don't mix up
> the creation operation with routine reporting of the identifier in
> events."  Steve, can you and Paul discuss and agree on what they should
> be called?  I don't have a horse in this race, but I need to record the
> result of that run.  ;-)

See my previous comments, I think I've been pretty clear on what I
would like to see.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com