From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: rgb@redhat.com, simo@redhat.com, carlos@redhat.com,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
linux-audit@redhat.com, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
ebiederm@xmission.com, luto@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 03/10] audit: log container info of syscalls
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 23:55:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181025235527.15a39d75@ivy-bridge> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhScaG8aOFYRV5hPXEKob1QRth5YFEbHNY=ZgKKAKxBBsQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 16:40:19 -0400
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 1:38 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > On 2018-10-25 17:57, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:27:32 -0400
> > > Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2018-10-25 06:49, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:06 AM Steve Grubb
> > > > > <sgrubb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 20:42:55 -0400
> > > > > > Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2018-10-24 16:55, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:15 AM Richard Guy Briggs
> > > > > > > > <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2018-10-19 19:16, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 4:32 AM Richard Guy Briggs
> > > > > > > > > > <rgb@redhat.com> 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));
> > > > > > > > > > > + audit_log_end(ab);
> > > > > > > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_contid);
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As discussed in the previous iteration of the
> > > > > > > > > > patch, I prefer AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID here over
> > > > > > > > > > AUDIT_CONTAINER. If you feel strongly about
> > > > > > > > > > keeping it as-is with AUDIT_CONTAINER I suppose I
> > > > > > > > > > could live with that, but it is isn't my first
> > > > > > > > > > choice.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't have a strong opinion on this one, mildly
> > > > > > > > > preferring the shorter one only because it is
> > > > > > > > > shorter.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We already have multiple AUDIT_CONTAINER* record types,
> > > > > > > > so it seems as though we should use "AUDIT_CONTAINER"
> > > > > > > > as a prefix of sorts, rather than a type itself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm fine with that. I'd still like to hear Steve's
> > > > > > > input. He had stronger opinions than me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The creation event should be separate and distinct from the
> > > > > > continuing use when its used as a supplemental record. IOW,
> > > > > > binding the ID to a container is part of the lifecycle and
> > > > > > needs to be kept distinct.
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve's comment is pretty ambiguous when it comes to
> > > > > AUDIT_CONTAINER vs AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID, but one could argue
> > > > > that AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID helps distinguish the audit container
> > > > > id marking record and gets to what I believe is the spirit of
> > > > > Steve's comment. Taking this in context with my previous
> > > > > remarks, let's switch to using AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect Steve is mixing up AUDIT_CONTAINER_OP with
> > > > AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID, confusing the fact that they are two
> > > > seperate records. As a summary, the suggested records are:
> > > > CONTAINER_OP audit container identifier creation
> > > > CONTAINER audit container identifier aux record to an
> > > > event
> > > >
> > > > and what Paul is suggesting (which is fine by me) is:
> > > > CONTAINER_OP audit container identifier creation event
> > > > CONTAINER_ID audit container identifier aux record to
> > > > an event
> > > >
> > > > Steve, please indicate you are fine with this.
> > >
> > > I thought it was:
> >
> > It *was*. It was changed at Paul's request in this v3 thread:
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2018-July/msg00087.html
> >
> > And listed in the examples and changelog to this v4 patchset:
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2018-July/msg00178.html
> >
> > It is also listed in this userspace patchset update v4 (which should
> > also have had a changelog added to it, note to self...):
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2018-July/msg00189.html
> >
> > I realize it is hard to keep up with all the detail changes in these
> > patchsets...
> >
> > > CONTAINER_ID audit container identifier creation event
> > > event. CONTAINER audit container identifier aux record to an
> > > event
> > >
> > > Or vice versa. Don't mix up creation of the identifier with
> > > operations.
> >
> > Exactly what I'm trying to avoid... Worded another way: "Don't mix
> > up the creation operation with routine reporting of the identifier
> > in events." Steve, can you and Paul discuss and agree on what they
> > should be called? I don't have a horse in this race, but I need to
> > record the result of that run. ;-)
>
> See my previous comments, I think I've been pretty clear on what I
> would like to see.
And historically speaking setting audit loginuid produces a LOGIN
event, so it only makes sense to consider binding container ID to
container as a CONTAINER event. For other supplemental records, we name
things what they are: PATH, CWD, SOCKADDR, etc. So, CONTAINER_ID makes
sense. CONTAINER_OP sounds like its for operations on a container. Do
we have any operations on a container?
-Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-25 21:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-31 20:07 [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 00/10] audit: implement container identifier Richard Guy Briggs
2018-07-31 20:07 ` [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 01/10] audit: collect audit task parameters Richard Guy Briggs
2018-10-19 23:15 ` Paul Moore
2018-11-01 22:07 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-01-03 20:10 ` Paul Moore
2019-01-03 20:29 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-01-03 20:33 ` Paul Moore
2019-01-03 20:38 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-01-24 20:36 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-01-04 2:50 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-01-04 14:57 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-01-04 22:04 ` Guenter Roeck
2018-07-31 20:07 ` [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 02/10] audit: add container id Richard Guy Briggs
2018-08-24 16:01 ` Steve Grubb
2018-10-19 19:38 ` Paul Moore
2018-10-19 19:40 ` Paul Moore
2018-10-19 21:50 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2018-07-31 20:07 ` [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 03/10] audit: log container info of syscalls Richard Guy Briggs
2018-08-24 16:01 ` Steve Grubb
2018-10-19 23:16 ` Paul Moore
2018-10-24 15:14 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2018-10-24 20:55 ` Paul Moore
2018-10-25 0:42 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2018-10-25 6:06 ` Steve Grubb
2018-10-25 10:49 ` Paul Moore
2018-10-25 12:27 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2018-10-25 15:57 ` Steve Grubb
2018-10-25 17:38 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2018-10-25 20:40 ` Paul Moore
2018-10-25 21:55 ` Steve Grubb [this message]
2018-10-26 8:09 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-10-28 7:53 ` Paul Moore
2018-10-25 6:13 ` Paul Moore
2018-10-25 12:22 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2018-07-31 20:07 ` [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 04/10] audit: add containerid support for ptrace and signals Richard Guy Briggs
2018-10-19 23:16 ` Paul Moore
2018-07-31 20:07 ` [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 05/10] audit: add support for non-syscall auxiliary records Richard Guy Briggs
2018-10-19 23:17 ` Paul Moore
2018-11-01 18:48 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-01-03 20:10 ` Paul Moore
2018-07-31 20:07 ` [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 06/10] audit: add containerid support for tty_audit Richard Guy Briggs
2018-10-19 23:17 ` Paul Moore
2018-10-31 21:17 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-01-03 20:11 ` Paul Moore
2019-01-10 22:58 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-01-11 1:12 ` Paul Moore
2019-01-11 3:38 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-01-11 23:16 ` Paul Moore
2018-07-31 20:07 ` [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 07/10] audit: add containerid filtering Richard Guy Briggs
2018-07-31 20:07 ` [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 08/10] audit: add support for containerid to network namespaces Richard Guy Briggs
2018-10-19 23:18 ` Paul Moore
2018-07-31 20:07 ` [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 09/10] audit: NETFILTER_PKT: record each container ID associated with a netNS Richard Guy Briggs
2018-10-19 23:18 ` Paul Moore
2018-10-31 19:30 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2018-12-27 15:33 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2018-12-27 22:54 ` Paul Moore
2018-07-31 20:07 ` [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 10/10] debug audit: read container ID of a process Richard Guy Briggs
2019-01-03 16:15 ` [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 00/10] audit: implement container identifier Guenter Roeck
2019-01-03 17:36 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-01-03 18:58 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-01-03 20:20 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2019-01-03 20:12 ` Paul Moore
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=20181025235527.15a39d75@ivy-bridge \
--to=sgrubb@redhat.com \
--cc=carlos@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=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=rgb@redhat.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=simo@redhat.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).