From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE88AC4332B for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 22:06:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com [216.205.24.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BD1E20754 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 22:06:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="afurMIpT" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8BD1E20754 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=paul-moore.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1584569187; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=FXRjR/EVzspe3L+yajXehRjHrx5EB0+9vaRRYXF2UFU=; b=afurMIpTUb2SoZgmoYauXnfVoQwd8/Z4kt+gYmgzUz1u8WkYBXb6tujB99ze8QscyqS56r rvdiKx9HsVWfHwNVl0FWDisfb8bBbTbpiTyW4Noujs75/3IJNlSPMF+I25PIxmpZoRiUcB QnbUHpzUbje9zOQ7utpyV6bfu/jNB3w= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-311-Na-areKsNOWjzS4zS2yYaA-1; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 18:06:25 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Na-areKsNOWjzS4zS2yYaA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10B778017CC; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 22:06:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.20]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A91D21001DF0; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 22:06:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A73C1809567; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 22:06:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 02IM6HTI008307 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 18:06:18 -0400 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id C8087115153; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 22:06:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast06.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.22]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1019117C0B for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F6B3185A78E for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 22:06:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ed1-f66.google.com (mail-ed1-f66.google.com [209.85.208.66]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-144-vYv26cFTMmmhz7zB-Ueclg-1; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 18:06:13 -0400 X-MC-Unique: vYv26cFTMmmhz7zB-Ueclg-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f66.google.com with SMTP id b18so93316edu.3 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:06:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TDXZZkhqjusv291He84nhKQlMbFezXaGS9XY4w8phpE=; b=TY8eonmfp3z3tI5eqJGiquBFw/Gk8aG1nDyaNk5VtM3HOpB5KZpmddpiMkYug8BVT1 Ur2D9JY9ohPujBubz2MGYKDeI8bVLNfW1BnGlz5sGBSc6HNf5LdhUVpxJl9fs2lPqokA x6eykJagHRkX2T8CFw2Xke6ugIWNaBQcPoD9W9+c5KKNYB3bA5lS1pJua6pp7okUJAAy bO0gBsH0WZ8sIfHHxhPw0Ijj4280k6TtK1rfM9UI2IBNGOL9ScF03UkNdeGoAxI7GEdC Ce378mdm82AloyjeeuN1CqBJBW9pEr2JfXo1c0PWQoPATJTweGNt4HnTucoGg/v5jHaU OR2w== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ116//aOJUJwtMdEMI+0xILeG1hqZdXaAqCX0fIeSBwj9NFyFOD SRZRQEF3iYdQTpYoIYKss4NhaUM7yx3rGpHeZECg X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtW4mfjwnuF24IoXcYzayNDU8snpAdY8T07RFr+nxOE2IbbjW1zRxqJVYGpUJx8Vd5VOBHbcoPpD4xtj23EMDs= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:cb93:: with SMTP id mf19mr378815ejb.272.1584569171696; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:06:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3142237.YMNxv0uec1@x2> <20200312193037.2tb5f53yeisfq4ta@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <20200313185900.y44yvrfm4zxa5lfk@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <20200318212630.mw2geg4ykhnbtr3k@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <20200318215550.es4stkjwnefrfen2@madcap2.tricolour.ca> In-Reply-To: <20200318215550.es4stkjwnefrfen2@madcap2.tricolour.ca> From: Paul Moore Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 18:06:00 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V8 07/16] audit: add contid support for signalling the audit daemon To: Richard Guy Briggs X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.11.54.5 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com id 02IM6HTI008307 X-loop: linux-audit@redhat.com Cc: nhorman@tuxdriver.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, LKML , dhowells@redhat.com, linux-audit@redhat.com, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, simo@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris , mpatel@redhat.com, Serge Hallyn X-BeenThere: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk List-Id: Linux Audit Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 5:56 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > On 2020-03-18 17:42, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 5:27 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > On 2020-03-18 16:56, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 2:59 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > > On 2020-03-13 12:29, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:30 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not convinced we do. What about the cases where we have a field > > > > > > with a list of audit container IDs? How do we handle that? > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand the problem. (I think you crossed your 1/2 vs > > > > > A/B/Y/Z in your example.) ... > > > > > > > > It looks like I did, sorry about that. > > > > > > > > > ... Clarifying the example above, if as you > > > > > suggest an event happens in container Z, the hosts's auditd would report > > > > > Z,^2 > > > > > and the auditd in container 2 would report > > > > > Z,^2 > > > > > but if there were another auditd running in container Z it would report > > > > > Z > > > > > while the auditd in container 1 or A/B would see nothing. > > > > > > > > Yes. My concern is how do we handle this to minimize duplicating and > > > > rewriting the records? It isn't so much about the format, although > > > > the format is a side effect. > > > > > > Are you talking about caching, or about divulging more information than > > > necessary or even information leaks? Or even noticing that records that > > > need to be generated to two audit daemons share the same contid field > > > values and should be generated at the same time or information shared > > > between them? I'd see any of these as optimizations that don't affect > > > the api. > > > > Imagine a record is generated in a container which has more than one > > auditd in it's ancestry that should receive this record, how do we > > handle that without completely killing performance? That's my > > concern. If you've already thought up a plan for this - excellent, > > please share :) > > No, I haven't given that much thought other than the correctness and > security issues of making sure that each audit daemon is sufficiently > isolated to do its job but not jeopardize another audit domain. Audit > already kills performance, according to some... > > We currently won't have that problem since there can only be one so far. > Fixing and optimizing this is part of the next phase of the challenge of > adding a second audit daemon. > > Let's work on correctness and reasonable efficiency for this phase and > not focus on a problem we don't yet have. I wouldn't consider this > incurring technical debt at this point. I agree, one stage at a time, but the choice we make here is going to have a significant impact on what we can do later. We need to get this as "right" as possible; this isn't something we should dismiss with a hand-wave as a problem for the next stage. We don't need an implementation, but I would like to see a rough design of how we would address this problem. > I could see cacheing a contid string from one starting point, but it may > be more work to search that cached string to truncate it or add to it > when another audit daemon requests a copy of a similar string. I > suppose every full contid string could be generated the first time it is > used and parts of it used (start/finish) as needed but that > search/indexing may not be worth it. I hope we can do better than string manipulations in the kernel. I'd much rather defer generating the ACID list (if possible), than generating a list only to keep copying and editing it as the record is sent. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit