From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Grubb Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH ghak32 V2 01/13] audit: add container id Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 09:56:36 -0400 Message-ID: <20180518095636.56ff322d@ivy-bridge> 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 Cc: simo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, carlos-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, LKML , eparis-FjpueFixGhCM4zKIHC2jIg@public.gmane.org, dhowells-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Linux-Audit Mailing List , ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, luto-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org To: Richard Guy Briggs Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180517215600.dyswlkvqdtgjwr5y-bcJWsdo4jJjeVoXN4CMphl7TgLCtbB0G@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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