netdev - Re: [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 03/10] 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: <CAHC9VhREHOMD2LrKyeN0HJLOVMPnz9kUNiv5d24omQYkXoVSBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:53:44 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     casey@...aufler-ca.com
Cc:     sgrubb@...hat.com, luto@...nel.org, rgb@...hat.com,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        dhowells@...hat.com, carlos@...hat.com, linux-audit@...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>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 03/10] audit: log container info of syscalls

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:13 AM Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/2018 2:55 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > ...
> > And historically speaking setting audit loginuid produces a LOGIN
> > event, so it only makes sense to consider binding container ID to
> > container as a CONTAINER event. For other supplemental records, we name
> > things what they are: PATH, CWD, SOCKADDR, etc. So, CONTAINER_ID makes
> > sense. CONTAINER_OP sounds like its for operations on a container. Do
> > we have any operations on a container?
>
> The answer has to be "no", because containers are, by emphatic assertion,
> not kernel constructs. Any CONTAINER_OP event has to come from user space.
> I think.

It is very important that we do not confuse operations on the audit
container id with operations on the containers themselves.  Of course
at a higher level, e.g. audit log analysis, we want to equate the two,
and if the container runtime which manages the audit container id is
sane that should be a reasonable assumption, but in this particular
patchset AUDIT_CONTAINER_OP is referring to operations involving just
the audit container id.

If there is a need for additional container operation auditing (note
well that I did not say audit container id here) then those audit
records can, and should, be generated by the container runtime itself,
similar to what we do with libvirt for virtualization.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com