netdev - Re: [PATCHv3] bpf: Emit audit messages upon successful prog load and unload

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: <20191210153652.GA14123@krava>
Date:   Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:36:52 +0100
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...hat.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] bpf: Emit audit messages upon successful prog load and
 unload

On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 06:53:23PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:19 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> > On 12/9/19 3:56 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 7:15 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 10:49:34PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > >>> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> > >>>
> > >>> Allow for audit messages to be emitted upon BPF program load and
> > >>> unload for having a timeline of events. The load itself is in
> > >>> syscall context, so additional info about the process initiating
> > >>> the BPF prog creation can be logged and later directly correlated
> > >>> to the unload event.
> > >>>
> > >>> The only info really needed from BPF side is the globally unique
> > >>> prog ID where then audit user space tooling can query / dump all
> > >>> info needed about the specific BPF program right upon load event
> > >>> and enrich the record, thus these changes needed here can be kept
> > >>> small and non-intrusive to the core.
> > >>>
> > >>> Raw example output:
> > >>>
> > >>>    # auditctl -D
> > >>>    # auditctl -a always,exit -F arch=x86_64 -S bpf
> > >>>    # ausearch --start recent -m 1334
> > >>>    ...
> > >>>    ----
> > >>>    time->Wed Nov 27 16:04:13 2019
> > >>>    type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(1574867053.120:84664): proctitle="./bpf"
> > >>>    type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1574867053.120:84664): arch=c000003e syscall=321   \
> > >>>      success=yes exit=3 a0=5 a1=7ffea484fbe0 a2=70 a3=0 items=0 ppid=7477    \
> > >>>      pid=12698 auid=1001 uid=1001 gid=1001 euid=1001 suid=1001 fsuid=1001    \
> > >>>      egid=1001 sgid=1001 fsgid=1001 tty=pts2 ses=4 comm="bpf"                \
> > >>>      exe="/home/jolsa/auditd/audit-testsuite/tests/bpf/bpf"                  \
> > >>>      subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null)
> > >>>    type=UNKNOWN[1334] msg=audit(1574867053.120:84664): prog-id=76 op=LOAD
> > >>>    ----
> > >>>    time->Wed Nov 27 16:04:13 2019
> > >>>    type=UNKNOWN[1334] msg=audit(1574867053.120:84665): prog-id=76 op=UNLOAD
> > >>>    ...
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> > >>> Co-developed-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> > >>
> > >> Paul, Steve, given the merge window is closed by now, does this version look
> > >> okay to you for proceeding to merge into bpf-next?
> > >
> > > Given the change to audit UAPI I was hoping to merge this via the
> > > audit/next tree, is that okay with you?
> >
> > Hm, my main concern is that given all the main changes are in BPF core and
> > usually the BPF subsystem has plenty of changes per release coming in that we'd
> > end up generating unnecessary merge conflicts. Given the include/uapi/linux/audit.h
> > UAPI diff is a one-line change, my preference would be to merge via bpf-next with
> > your ACK or SOB added. Does that work for you as well as?
> 
> I regularly (a few times a week) run the audit and SELinux tests
> against Linus+audit/next+selinux/next to make sure things are working
> as expected and that some other subsystem has introduced a change
> which has broken something.  If you are willing to ensure the tests
> get run, including your new BPF audit tests I would be okay with that;
> is that acceptable?

hi,
would you please let me know which tree this landed at the end?

thanks,
jirka