netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH ghak32 V2 01/13] audit: add container id

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:   Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:41:29 -0700
From:   Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        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 01/13] audit: add container id

On 4/18/2018 4:47 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:00 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Implement the proc fs write to set the audit container ID of a process,
>> emitting an AUDIT_CONTAINER record to document the event.
>> ...
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>> index d258826..1b82191 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>> @@ -796,6 +796,7 @@ struct task_struct {
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL
>>         kuid_t                          loginuid;
>>         unsigned int                    sessionid;
>> +       u64                             containerid;
> This one line addition to the task_struct scares me the most of
> anything in this patchset.  Why?  It's a field named "containerid" in
> a perhaps one of the most widely used core kernel structures; the
> possibilities for abuse are endless, and it's foolish to think we
> would ever be able to adequately police this.

If we can get the LSM infrastructure managed task blobs from 
module stacking in ahead of this we could create a trivial security
module to manage this. It's not as if there aren't all sorts of
interactions between security modules and the audit system already.