From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 03/10] audit: log container info of syscalls Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 19:16:38 -0400 Message-ID: References: <34017c395d03a213d6b0d49b9964429bd32b283d.1533065887.git.rgb@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, luto@kernel.org, carlos@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, simo@redhat.com, Eric Paris , Serge Hallyn To: rgb@redhat.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <34017c395d03a213d6b0d49b9964429bd32b283d.1533065887.git.rgb@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 4:32 AM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > Create a new audit record AUDIT_CONTAINER to document the audit > container identifier of a process if it is present. > > Called from audit_log_exit(), syscalls are covered. > > A sample raw event: > type=3DSYSCALL msg=3Daudit(1519924845.499:257): arch=3Dc000003e syscall= =3D257 success=3Dyes exit=3D3 a0=3Dffffff9c a1=3D56374e1cef30 a2=3D241 a3= =3D1b6 items=3D2 ppid=3D606 pid=3D635 auid=3D0 uid=3D0 gid=3D0 euid=3D0 sui= d=3D0 fsuid=3D0 egid=3D0 sgid=3D0 fsgid=3D0 tty=3Dpts0 ses=3D3 comm=3D"bash= " exe=3D"/usr/bin/bash" subj=3Dunconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0= :c0.c1023 key=3D"tmpcontainerid" > type=3DCWD msg=3Daudit(1519924845.499:257): cwd=3D"/root" > type=3DPATH msg=3Daudit(1519924845.499:257): item=3D0 name=3D"/tmp/" inod= e=3D13863 dev=3D00:27 mode=3D041777 ouid=3D0 ogid=3D0 rdev=3D00:00 obj=3Dsy= stem_u:object_r:tmp_t:s0 nametype=3D PARENT cap_fp=3D0000000000000000 cap_f= i=3D0000000000000000 cap_fe=3D0 cap_fver=3D0 > type=3DPATH msg=3Daudit(1519924845.499:257): item=3D1 name=3D"/tmp/tmpcon= tainerid" inode=3D17729 dev=3D00:27 mode=3D0100644 ouid=3D0 ogid=3D0 rdev= =3D00:00 obj=3Dunconfined_u:object_r:user_tmp_t:s0 nametype=3DCREATE cap_fp= =3D0000000000000000 cap_fi=3D0000000000000000 cap_fe=3D0 cap_fver=3D0 > type=3DPROCTITLE msg=3Daudit(1519924845.499:257): proctitle=3D62617368002= D6300736C65657020313B206563686F2074657374203E202F746D702F746D70636F6E746169= 6E65726964 > type=3DCONTAINER msg=3Daudit(1519924845.499:257): op=3Dtask contid=3D1234= 58 > > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/90 > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/issues/51 > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-testsuite/issues/64 > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/wiki/RFE-Audit-Container= -ID > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn > Acked-by: Steve Grubb > --- > include/linux/audit.h | 7 +++++++ > include/uapi/linux/audit.h | 1 + > kernel/audit.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > kernel/auditsc.c | 3 +++ > 4 files changed, 35 insertions(+) ... > @@ -2045,6 +2045,30 @@ void audit_log_session_info(struct audit_buffer *a= b) > audit_log_format(ab, " auid=3D%u ses=3D%u", auid, sessionid); > } > > +/* > + * 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 =3D audit_log_start(context, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_CONTAINER); > + if (!ab) > + return -ENOMEM; > + audit_log_format(ab, "op=3D%s contid=3D%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. However, I do care about the "op" field in this record. It just doesn't make any sense; the way you are using it it is more of a context field than an operations field, and even then why is the context important from a logging and/or security perspective? Drop it please. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com