From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>,
nhorman@tuxdriver.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
dhowells@redhat.com,
Linux-Audit Mailing List <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 <eparis@parisplace.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V6 02/10] audit: add container id
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:26:16 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190716162616.7kgvqbqxn4icqyb3@madcap2.tricolour.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhTaLqCo8rmAaySJQB+Pf-580=3mvX1rPmtEeb9o5Uy9Qg@mail.gmail.com>
On 2019-07-16 12:08, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:37 AM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 2019-07-15 17:09, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:12 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > On 2019-05-30 19:26, Paul Moore wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > I like the creativity, but I worry that at some point these
> > > > > limitations are going to be raised (limits have a funny way of doing
> > > > > that over time) and we will be in trouble. I say "trouble" because I
> > > > > want to be able to quickly do an audit container ID comparison and
> > > > > we're going to pay a penalty for these larger values (we'll need this
> > > > > when we add multiple auditd support and the requisite record routing).
> > > > >
> > > > > Thinking about this makes me also realize we probably need to think a
> > > > > bit longer about audit container ID conflicts between orchestrators.
> > > > > Right now we just take the value that is given to us by the
> > > > > orchestrator, but if we want to allow multiple container orchestrators
> > > > > to work without some form of cooperation in userspace (I think we have
> > > > > to assume the orchestrators will not talk to each other) we likely
> > > > > need to have some way to block reuse of an audit container ID. We
> > > > > would either need to prevent the orchestrator from explicitly setting
> > > > > an audit container ID to a currently in use value, or instead generate
> > > > > the audit container ID in the kernel upon an event triggered by the
> > > > > orchestrator (e.g. a write to a /proc file). I suspect we should
> > > > > start looking at the idr code, I think we will need to make use of it.
> > > >
> > > > To address this, I'd suggest that it is enforced to only allow the
> > > > setting of descendants and to maintain a master list of audit container
> > > > identifiers (with a hash table if necessary later) that includes the
> > > > container owner.
> > >
> > > We're discussing the audit container ID management policy elsewhere in
> > > this thread so I won't comment on that here, but I did want to say
> > > that we will likely need something better than a simple list of audit
> > > container IDs from the start. It's common for systems to have
> > > thousands of containers now (or multiple thousands), which tells me
> > > that a list is a poor choice. You mentioned a hash table, so I would
> > > suggest starting with that over the list for the initial patchset.
> >
> > I saw that as an internal incremental improvement that did not affect
> > the API, so I wanted to keep things a bit simpler (as you've requested
> > in the past) to get this going, and add that enhancement later.
>
> In general a simple approach is a good way to start when the
> problem/use-case is not very well understood; in other words, don't
> spend a lot of time/effort optimizing something you don't yet
> understand. In this case we know that people want to deploy a *lot*
> of containers on a single system so we should design the data
> structures appropriately. A list is simply not a good fit here, I
> believe/hope you know that too.
Yes, I knew that, which is why I alluded to a hash table...
> > I'll start working on it now. The hash table would simply point to
> > lists anyways unless you can recommend a better approach.
>
> I assume when you say "point to lists" you are talking about using
> lists for the hash buckets? If so, yes that should be fine at this
> point. In general if the per-bucket lists become a bottleneck we can
> look at the size of the table (or make it tunable) or even use a
> different approach entirely. Ultimately the data store is an
> implementation detail private to the audit subsystem in the kernel so
> we should be able to change it as necessary without breaking anything.
Yes, this is what I had in mind. It would be tunable either by a macro
or a config option, so the exact value isn't a critical implementation
detail that can be easily tuned as we gain experience with it. And yes,
the intent was that it was a non-user-perceivable implementation choice
other than performace metrics.
> paul moore
- RGB
--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-16 16:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-09 3:39 [PATCH ghak90 V6 00/10] audit: implement container identifier Richard Guy Briggs
2019-04-09 3:39 ` [PATCH ghak90 V6 01/10] audit: collect audit task parameters Richard Guy Briggs
2019-04-09 3:39 ` [PATCH ghak90 V6 02/10] audit: add container id Richard Guy Briggs
2019-05-29 14:57 ` Tycho Andersen
2019-05-29 15:29 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-29 15:34 ` Tycho Andersen
2019-05-29 16:03 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-29 22:28 ` Tycho Andersen
2019-05-29 22:39 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-30 17:09 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2019-05-30 19:29 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-30 21:29 ` Tycho Andersen
2019-05-30 23:26 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-31 0:20 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-05-31 12:44 ` Paul Moore
2019-06-03 20:24 ` Steve Grubb
2019-06-18 22:12 ` Paul Moore
2019-06-18 22:46 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-07-08 18:12 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-07-08 20:43 ` Paul Moore
2019-07-15 21:09 ` Paul Moore
2019-07-16 15:37 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-07-16 16:08 ` Paul Moore
2019-07-16 16:26 ` Richard Guy Briggs [this message]
2019-07-08 18:05 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-07-15 21:04 ` Paul Moore
2019-07-16 22:03 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-07-16 23:30 ` Paul Moore
2019-07-18 0:51 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-07-18 21:52 ` Paul Moore
2019-07-19 16:00 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-07-20 2:19 ` James Bottomley
2019-07-19 15:32 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-07-08 17:51 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-07-15 20:38 ` Paul Moore
2019-07-16 19:38 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-07-16 21:39 ` Paul Moore
2019-07-19 16:07 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-04-09 3:39 ` [PATCH ghak90 V6 03/10] audit: read container ID of a process Richard Guy Briggs
2019-07-19 16:03 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-07-19 17:05 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-04-09 3:39 ` [PATCH ghak90 V6 04/10] audit: log container info of syscalls Richard Guy Briggs
2019-05-29 22:15 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-30 13:08 ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2019-05-30 14:08 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-05-30 14:34 ` Paul Moore
2019-04-09 3:39 ` [PATCH ghak90 V6 05/10] audit: add contid support for signalling the audit daemon Richard Guy Briggs
2019-04-09 12:57 ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2019-04-09 13:40 ` Paul Moore
2019-04-09 13:48 ` Neil Horman
2019-04-09 14:00 ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2019-04-09 14:07 ` Paul Moore
2019-04-09 13:53 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-04-09 14:08 ` Paul Moore
2019-04-09 13:46 ` Neil Horman
2019-04-09 3:39 ` [PATCH ghak90 V6 06/10] audit: add support for non-syscall auxiliary records Richard Guy Briggs
2019-04-09 3:39 ` [PATCH ghak90 V6 07/10] audit: add containerid support for user records Richard Guy Briggs
2019-04-09 3:39 ` [PATCH ghak90 V6 08/10] audit: add containerid filtering Richard Guy Briggs
2019-05-29 22:16 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-30 14:19 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-05-30 14:34 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-30 20:37 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-05-30 20:45 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-30 21:10 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-04-09 3:39 ` [PATCH ghak90 V6 09/10] audit: add support for containerid to network namespaces Richard Guy Briggs
2019-05-29 22:17 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-30 14:15 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-05-30 14:32 ` Paul Moore
2019-04-09 3:39 ` [PATCH ghak90 V6 10/10] audit: NETFILTER_PKT: record each container ID associated with a netNS Richard Guy Briggs
2019-04-11 11:31 ` [PATCH ghak90 V6 00/10] audit: implement container identifier Richard Guy Briggs
2019-04-22 11:38 ` Neil Horman
2019-04-22 13:49 ` Paul Moore
2019-04-23 10:28 ` Neil Horman
2019-05-28 21:53 ` Daniel Walsh
2019-05-28 22:25 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-05-28 22:26 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-28 23:00 ` Steve Grubb
2019-05-29 0:43 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-05-29 12:02 ` Daniel Walsh
2019-05-29 13:17 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-29 14:07 ` Daniel Walsh
2019-05-29 14:33 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-29 13:14 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-29 22:26 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-30 13:08 ` Steve Grubb
2019-05-30 13:35 ` Paul Moore
2019-05-30 14:08 ` Richard Guy Briggs
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190716162616.7kgvqbqxn4icqyb3@madcap2.tricolour.ca \
--to=rgb@redhat.com \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=eparis@parisplace.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=simo@redhat.com \
--cc=tycho@tycho.ws \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).