Re: [RFC PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V3 02/10] audit: log container info of syscalls

From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, luto@kernel.org,
	carlos@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	simo@redhat.com, Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
	serge@hallyn.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V3 02/10] audit: log container info of syscalls
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 09:32:00 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5467262.rd0RIe6TW9@x2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180721202930.a7rypxc5rxi3hyiv@madcap2.tricolour.ca>

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?

-Steve