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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180731200725.rwo6erlnsmqz6nnq@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jul 2018 16:07:25 -0400
From:   Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     sgrubb@...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, 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 2018-07-25 20:51, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 2018-07-23 14:31, Paul Moore wrote:
> > 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).
> 
> In fact, I'd like to question the wisdom of dropping this field and
> perhaps fine a better or new name for it, since these contid records
> could be multiple and different from the primary task that is generating
> this record.  In particular, there are extra contid records generated by
> the ptrace/signals patch that could be from other processes in other
> containers that I mentioned in a branch thread that got dropped
> including the auc_pids data and the target_pid also attached to the
> primary task's audit context.

Ok, not seeing any further follow-up on this item in almost a week, I'll
not delay any more and post rev 4 of the patchset.

> > paul moore
> 
> - RGB

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635