From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 09:56:36 -0400 From: Steve Grubb To: Richard Guy Briggs Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Linux-Audit Mailing List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKML , netdev@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, luto@kernel.org, jlayton@redhat.com, carlos@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, simo@redhat.com, eparis@parisplace.org, serge@hallyn.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH ghak32 V2 01/13] audit: add container id Message-ID: <20180518095636.56ff322d@ivy-bridge> In-Reply-To: <20180517215600.dyswlkvqdtgjwr5y@madcap2.tricolour.ca> References: <20180517170053.7d4afa87@ivy-bridge> <20180517215600.dyswlkvqdtgjwr5y@madcap2.tricolour.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:56:00 -0400 Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > During syscall events, the path info is returned in a a record > > simply called AUDIT_PATH, cwd info is returned in AUDIT_CWD. So, > > rather than calling the record that gets attached to everything > > AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO, how about simply AUDIT_CONTAINER. > > Considering the container initiation record is different than the > record to document the container involved in an otherwise normal > syscall, we need two names. I don't have a strong opinion what they > are. > > I'd prefer AUDIT_CONTAIN and AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO so that the two > are different enough to be visually distinct while leaving > AUDIT_CONTAINERID for the field type in patch 4 ("audit: add > containerid filtering") How about AUDIT_CONTAINER for the auxiliary record? The one that starts the container, I don't have a strong opinion on. Could be AUDIT_CONTAINER_INIT, AUDIT_CONTAINER_START, AUDIT_CONTAINERID, AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID, or something else. The API call that sets the ID for filtering could be AUDIT_CID or AUDIT_CONTID if that helps decide what the initial event might be. Normally, it should match the field being filtered. Best Regards, -Steve