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  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:   Fri, 21 Aug 2020 16:13:45 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <>
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <>
        LKML <>,,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <>,,,,,, Eric Paris <>,, Serge Hallyn <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V9 11/13] audit: contid check descendancy and nesting

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:10 PM Richard Guy Briggs <> wrote:
> On 2020-07-05 11:11, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 9:23 AM Richard Guy Briggs <> wrote:
> > > Require the target task to be a descendant of the container
> > > orchestrator/engine.

If you want to get formal about this, you need to define "target" in
the sentence above.  Target of what?

FWIW, I read the above to basically mean that a task can only set the
audit container ID of processes which are beneath it in the "process
tree" where the "process tree" is defined as the relationship between
a parent and children processes such that the children processes are
branches below the parent process.

I have no problem with that, with the understanding that nesting
complicates it somewhat.  For example, this isn't true when one of the
children is a nested orchestrator, is it?

> > > You would only change the audit container ID from one set or inherited
> > > value to another if you were nesting containers.

I thought we decided we were going to allow an orchestrator to move a
process between audit container IDs, yes?  no?

> > > If changing the contid, the container orchestrator/engine must be a
> > > descendant and not same orchestrator as the one that set it so it is not
> > > possible to change the contid of another orchestrator's container.

Try rephrasing the above please, it isn't clear to me what you are
trying to say.

> Are we able to agree on the premises above?  Is anything asserted that
> should not be and is there anything missing?

See above.

If you want to go back to the definitions/assumptions stage, it
probably isn't worth worrying about the other comments until we get
the above sorted.

paul moore

Powered by blists - more mailing lists