From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64799C10DCE for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:30:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431C5206EB for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:30:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="iFnHgZgL" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726788AbgCLTa5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:30:57 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:37121 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726706AbgCLTa5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:30:57 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1584041455; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QvUXhImPqA1Uvu5bgO3XTxZQY9biJKg8Q/V15yAEJs0=; b=iFnHgZgLNOnnjhz+faLqfH40ZucBsLk10iv5qrngFNVm4+t0kY4cqNnO3bMxoX+yKZwrDA Vrfcj2zgSbQzKHaDUQpn37Nw8kP2OpThRYoqOHDUcDKX5No9gy0jYSSy5rHoweuIKbl0mA FyNMt0CEL6hzmd/BwjukKOuBf7vQBck= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-250-nHBA0sDFNZuri9ndoi6yhw-1; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:30:51 -0400 X-MC-Unique: nHBA0sDFNZuri9ndoi6yhw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5E021922965; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:30:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from madcap2.tricolour.ca (ovpn-112-16.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.16]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F40419C6A; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:30:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:30:37 -0400 From: Richard Guy Briggs To: Paul Moore Cc: Steve Grubb , linux-audit@redhat.com, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, LKML , dhowells@redhat.com, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, simo@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris , mpatel@redhat.com, Serge Hallyn Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V8 07/16] audit: add contid support for signalling the audit daemon Message-ID: <20200312193037.2tb5f53yeisfq4ta@madcap2.tricolour.ca> References: <20200204231454.oxa7pyvuxbj466fj@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <3142237.YMNxv0uec1@x2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org On 2020-02-13 16:44, Paul Moore wrote: > This is a bit of a thread-hijack, and for that I apologize, but > another thought crossed my mind while thinking about this issue > further ... Once we support multiple auditd instances, including the > necessary record routing and duplication/multiple-sends (the host > always sees *everything*), we will likely need to find a way to "trim" > the audit container ID (ACID) lists we send in the records. The > auditd instance running on the host/initns will always see everything, > so it will want the full container ACID list; however an auditd > instance running inside a container really should only see the ACIDs > of any child containers. Agreed. This should be easy to check and limit, preventing an auditd from seeing any contid that is a parent of its own contid. > For example, imagine a system where the host has containers 1 and 2, > each running an auditd instance. Inside container 1 there are > containers A and B. Inside container 2 there are containers Y and Z. > If an audit event is generated in container Z, I would expect the > host's auditd to see a ACID list of "1,Z" but container 1's auditd > should only see an ACID list of "Z". The auditd running in container > 2 should not see the record at all (that will be relatively > straightforward). Does that make sense? Do we have the record > formats properly designed to handle this without too much problem (I'm > not entirely sure we do)? I completely agree and I believe we have record formats that are able to handle this already. > paul moore - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada IRC: rgb, SunRaycer Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635