[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200312193037.2tb5f53yeisfq4ta@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:30:37 -0400
From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>, linux-audit@...hat.com,
nhorman@...driver.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, dhowells@...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>,
mpatel@...hat.com, Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V8 07/16] audit: add contid support for signalling
the audit daemon
On 2020-02-13 16:44, Paul Moore wrote:
> This is a bit of a thread-hijack, and for that I apologize, but
> another thought crossed my mind while thinking about this issue
> further ... Once we support multiple auditd instances, including the
> necessary record routing and duplication/multiple-sends (the host
> always sees *everything*), we will likely need to find a way to "trim"
> the audit container ID (ACID) lists we send in the records. The
> auditd instance running on the host/initns will always see everything,
> so it will want the full container ACID list; however an auditd
> instance running inside a container really should only see the ACIDs
> of any child containers.
Agreed. This should be easy to check and limit, preventing an auditd
from seeing any contid that is a parent of its own contid.
> For example, imagine a system where the host has containers 1 and 2,
> each running an auditd instance. Inside container 1 there are
> containers A and B. Inside container 2 there are containers Y and Z.
> If an audit event is generated in container Z, I would expect the
> host's auditd to see a ACID list of "1,Z" but container 1's auditd
> should only see an ACID list of "Z". The auditd running in container
> 2 should not see the record at all (that will be relatively
> straightforward). Does that make sense? Do we have the record
> formats properly designed to handle this without too much problem (I'm
> not entirely sure we do)?
I completely agree and I believe we have record formats that are able to
handle this already.
> paul moore
- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists