Re: [PATCHv3] bpf: Emit audit messages upon successful prog load and unload

[Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 8:20 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 05:45:59PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:37 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 06:53:23PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:19 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> > > > > On 12/9/19 3:56 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 7:15 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 10:49:34PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > > >>> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Allow for audit messages to be emitted upon BPF program load and
> > > > > >>> unload for having a timeline of events. The load itself is in
> > > > > >>> syscall context, so additional info about the process initiating
> > > > > >>> the BPF prog creation can be logged and later directly correlated
> > > > > >>> to the unload event.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> The only info really needed from BPF side is the globally unique
> > > > > >>> prog ID where then audit user space tooling can query / dump all
> > > > > >>> info needed about the specific BPF program right upon load event
> > > > > >>> and enrich the record, thus these changes needed here can be kept
> > > > > >>> small and non-intrusive to the core.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Raw example output:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>    # auditctl -D
> > > > > >>>    # auditctl -a always,exit -F arch=x86_64 -S bpf
> > > > > >>>    # ausearch --start recent -m 1334
> > > > > >>>    ...
> > > > > >>>    ----
> > > > > >>>    time->Wed Nov 27 16:04:13 2019
> > > > > >>>    type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(1574867053.120:84664): proctitle="./bpf"
> > > > > >>>    type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1574867053.120:84664): arch=c000003e syscall=321   \
> > > > > >>>      success=yes exit=3 a0=5 a1=7ffea484fbe0 a2=70 a3=0 items=0 ppid=7477    \
> > > > > >>>      pid=12698 auid=1001 uid=1001 gid=1001 euid=1001 suid=1001 fsuid=1001    \
> > > > > >>>      egid=1001 sgid=1001 fsgid=1001 tty=pts2 ses=4 comm="bpf"                \
> > > > > >>>      exe="/home/jolsa/auditd/audit-testsuite/tests/bpf/bpf"                  \
> > > > > >>>      subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null)
> > > > > >>>    type=UNKNOWN[1334] msg=audit(1574867053.120:84664): prog-id=76 op=LOAD
> > > > > >>>    ----
> > > > > >>>    time->Wed Nov 27 16:04:13 2019
> > > > > >>>    type=UNKNOWN[1334] msg=audit(1574867053.120:84665): prog-id=76 op=UNLOAD
> > > > > >>>    ...
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> > > > > >>> Co-developed-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Paul, Steve, given the merge window is closed by now, does this version look
> > > > > >> okay to you for proceeding to merge into bpf-next?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Given the change to audit UAPI I was hoping to merge this via the
> > > > > > audit/next tree, is that okay with you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hm, my main concern is that given all the main changes are in BPF core and
> > > > > usually the BPF subsystem has plenty of changes per release coming in that we'd
> > > > > end up generating unnecessary merge conflicts. Given the include/uapi/linux/audit.h
> > > > > UAPI diff is a one-line change, my preference would be to merge via bpf-next with
> > > > > your ACK or SOB added. Does that work for you as well as?
> > > >
> > > > I regularly (a few times a week) run the audit and SELinux tests
> > > > against Linus+audit/next+selinux/next to make sure things are working
> > > > as expected and that some other subsystem has introduced a change
> > > > which has broken something.  If you are willing to ensure the tests
> > > > get run, including your new BPF audit tests I would be okay with that;
> > > > is that acceptable?
> > >
> > > would you please let me know which tree this landed at the end?
> >
> > I think that's what we are trying to figure out - Daniel?
>
> Yeah, sounds reasonable wrt running tests to make sure nothing breaks. In that
> case I'd wait for your ACK or SOB to proceed with merging into bpf-next. Thanks
> Paul!

As long as you're going to keep testing this, here ya go :)

Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>

(also, go ahead and submit that PR for audit-testsuite - thanks!)

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com