Message-ID: <20181025235527.15a39d75@ivy-bridge>
Date:   Thu, 25 Oct 2018 23:55:27 +0200
From:   Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     rgb@...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, 25 Oct 2018 16:40:19 -0400
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:

> 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
> > > 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.

And historically speaking setting audit loginuid produces a LOGIN
event, so it only makes sense to consider binding container ID to
container as a CONTAINER event. For other supplemental records, we name
things what they are: PATH, CWD, SOCKADDR, etc. So, CONTAINER_ID makes
sense. CONTAINER_OP sounds like its for operations on a container. Do
we have any operations on a container?

-Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists