[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQoVOzy_b9W6h+kmizKr1rPkC4cy5aYoKT2i0ZgsceNDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:29:10 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>, linux-audit@...hat.com,
nhorman@...driver.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, dhowells@...hat.com,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
simo@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
mpatel@...hat.com, Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V8 07/16] audit: add contid support for signalling
the audit daemon
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:30 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 2020-02-13 16:44, Paul Moore wrote:
> > This is a bit of a thread-hijack, and for that I apologize, but
> > another thought crossed my mind while thinking about this issue
> > further ... Once we support multiple auditd instances, including the
> > necessary record routing and duplication/multiple-sends (the host
> > always sees *everything*), we will likely need to find a way to "trim"
> > the audit container ID (ACID) lists we send in the records. The
> > auditd instance running on the host/initns will always see everything,
> > so it will want the full container ACID list; however an auditd
> > instance running inside a container really should only see the ACIDs
> > of any child containers.
>
> Agreed. This should be easy to check and limit, preventing an auditd
> from seeing any contid that is a parent of its own contid.
>
> > For example, imagine a system where the host has containers 1 and 2,
> > each running an auditd instance. Inside container 1 there are
> > containers A and B. Inside container 2 there are containers Y and Z.
> > If an audit event is generated in container Z, I would expect the
> > host's auditd to see a ACID list of "1,Z" but container 1's auditd
> > should only see an ACID list of "Z". The auditd running in container
> > 2 should not see the record at all (that will be relatively
> > straightforward). Does that make sense? Do we have the record
> > formats properly designed to handle this without too much problem (I'm
> > not entirely sure we do)?
>
> I completely agree and I believe we have record formats that are able to
> handle this already.
I'm not convinced we do. What about the cases where we have a field
with a list of audit container IDs? How do we handle that?
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists