Re: [PATCH ghak124 v3] audit: log nftables configuration change events

From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
	netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, twoerner@redhat.com,
	Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
	tgraf@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak124 v3] audit: log nftables configuration change events
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 23:42:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210218224200.GF22944@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210218212001.GQ3141668@madcap2.tricolour.ca>

Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > If they appear in a batch tehy will be ignored, if the batch consists of
> > such non-modifying ops only then nf_tables_commit() returns early
> > because the transaction list is empty (nothing to do/change).
> 
> Ok, one little inconvenient question: what about GETOBJ_RESET?  That
> looks like a hybrid that modifies kernel table counters and reports
> synchronously.  That could be a special case call in
> nf_tables_dump_obj() and nf_tables_getobj().  Will that cause a storm
> per commit?

No, since they can't be part of a commit (they don't implement the
'call_batch' function).

I'm not sure GETOBJ_RESET should be reported in the first place:
RESET only affects expr internal state, and that state changes all the time
anyway in response to network traffic.