netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V3 08/10] audit: NETFILTER_PKT: record each container ID associated with a netNS

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:   Tue, 24 Jul 2018 15:48:03 -0400
From:   Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     rgb@...hat.com, 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, 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 ghak90 (was ghak32) V3 08/10] audit: NETFILTER_PKT: record each container ID associated with a netNS

On Friday, July 20, 2018 6:15:00 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 1:03 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Add audit container identifier auxiliary record(s) to NETFILTER_PKT
> > event standalone records.  Iterate through all potential audit container
> > identifiers associated with a network namespace.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/audit.h    |  5 +++++
> > kernel/audit.c           | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> > kernel/auditsc.c         |  2 ++
> > net/netfilter/xt_AUDIT.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > 4 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> ...
> 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/audit.h b/include/linux/audit.h
> > index 7e2e51c..4560a4e 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/audit.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/audit.h
> > @@ -167,6 +167,8 @@ extern int audit_log_contid(struct audit_context
> > *context, extern void audit_contid_add(struct net *net, u64 contid);
> > extern void audit_contid_del(struct net *net, u64 contid);
> > extern void audit_switch_task_namespaces(struct nsproxy *ns, struct
> > task_struct *p); +extern void audit_log_contid_list(struct net *net,
> > +                                struct audit_context *context);
> 
> See my comment in previous patches about changing the function name to
> better indicate it's dedicate use for network namespaces.
> 
> > extern int                 audit_update_lsm_rules(void);
> > 
> > @@ -231,6 +233,9 @@ static inline void audit_contid_del(struct net *net,
> > u64 contid) { }
> > static inline void audit_switch_task_namespaces(struct nsproxy *ns,
> > struct task_struct *p) { }
> > +static inline void audit_log_contid_list(struct net *net,
> > +                                       struct audit_context *context)
> > +{ }
> > 
> > #define audit_enabled 0
> > #endif /* CONFIG_AUDIT */
> > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
> > index ecd2de4..8cca41a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/audit.c
> > +++ b/kernel/audit.c
> > @@ -382,6 +382,20 @@ void audit_switch_task_namespaces(struct nsproxy
> > *ns, struct task_struct *p) audit_contid_add(new->net_ns, contid);
> > }
> > 
> > +void audit_log_contid_list(struct net *net, struct audit_context
> > *context) +{
> > +       struct audit_contid *cont;
> > +       int i = 0;
> > +
> > +       list_for_each_entry(cont, audit_get_contid_list(net), list) {
> > +               char buf[14];
> > +
> > +               sprintf(buf, "net%u", i++);
> > +               audit_log_contid(context, buf, cont->id);
> 
> Hmm.  It looks like this will generate multiple audit container ID
> records with "op=netX contid=Y" (X=netns number, Y=audit container
> ID), is that what we want?  I've mentioned my concern around the "op"
> values in these records earlier in the patchset, that still applies
> here, but now I'm also concerned about the multiple records.  I'm
> thinking we might be better served with a single record with either
> multiple "contid" fields, or a single "contid" field with a set of
> comma separated values (or some other delimiter that Steve's tools
> will tolerate).
> 
> Steve, thoughts?

A single record is best. Maybe pattern this after the args listed in an 
execve record.

-Steve