netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V3 02/10] 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: <CAHC9VhTkuf+2BwJp399-NzSgQyp21GgY1SZVDboDdXgpvEV=pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jul 2018 14:31:11 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     sgrubb@...hat.com, rgb@...hat.com
Cc:     cgroups@...r.kernel.org, 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, 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@...lyn.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V3 02/10] audit: log container
 info of syscalls

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:48 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 11:11:48 AM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 2018-07-23 09:19, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 22, 2018 4:55:10 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > On 2018-07-22 09:32, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 4:29:30 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs 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));
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you explain your reason for including an "op" field in this
> > > > > > > record
> > > > > > > type?  I've been looking at the rest of the patches in this
> > > > > > > patchset
> > > > > > > and it seems to be used more as an indicator of the record's
> > > > > > > generating context rather than any sort of audit container ID
> > > > > > > operation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "action" might work, but that's netfilter and numeric... "kind"?
> > > > > > Nothing else really seems to fit from a field name, type or lack of
> > > > > > searchability perspective.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve, do you have an opinion?
> > > > >
> > > > > We only have 1 sample event where we have op=task. What are the other
> > > > > possible values?
> > > >
> > > > For the AUDIT_CONTAINER record we have op= "task", "target" (from the
> > > > ptrace and signals patch), "tty".
> > > >
> > > > For the AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID record we have "op=set".
> > >
> > > Since the purpose of this record is to log the container id, I think that
> > > is all that is needed. We can get the context from the other records in
> > > the event. I'd suggest dropping the "op" field.
> >
> > Ok, the information above it for two different audit container
> > identifier records.  Which one should drop the "op=" field?  Both?  Or
> > just the AUDIT_CONTAINER record?  The AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID record (which
> > might be renamed) could use it to distinguish a "set" record from a
> > dropped audit container identifier that is no longer registered by any
> > task or namespace.
>
> Neither of them need it. All they need to do is state the container that is
> being acted upon.

I think we should keep the "op" field for audit container ID
management operations, even though we really only have a "set"
operation at the moment, but the others should drop the "op" field
(see my previous emails in this thread).

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com