On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 07:36:29PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:23 PM Alexei Starovoitov > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 06:41:31PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:49 PM Alexei Starovoitov > > > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 1:46 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On 11/20/19 10:38 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > > > From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 20 12:45:51 2019 > > > > > > type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(1574271951.590:8974): proctitle="./test_verifier" > > > > > > type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1574271951.590:8974): arch=c000003e syscall=321 success=yes exit=14 a0=5 a1=7ffe2d923e80 a2=78 a3=0 items=0 ppid=742 pid=949 auid=0 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0 fsgid=0 tty=pts0 ses=2 comm="test_verifier" exe="/root/bpf-next/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier" subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null) > > > > > > type=UNKNOWN[1334] msg=audit(1574271951.590:8974): auid=0 uid=0 gid=0 ses=2 subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 pid=949 comm="test_verifier" exe="/root/bpf-next/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier" prog-id=3260 event=LOAD > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > time->Wed Nov 20 12:45:51 2019 > > > > > > type=UNKNOWN[1334] msg=audit(1574271951.590:8975): prog-id=3260 event=UNLOAD > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > LGTM, thanks for the rebase! > > > > > > > > Applied to bpf-next. Thanks! > > > > > > [NOTE: added linux-audit to the To/CC line] > > > > > > Wait a minute, why was the linux-audit list not CC'd on this? Why are > > > you merging a patch into -next that adds to the uapi definition *and* > > > creates a new audit record while we are at -rc8? > > > > > > Aside from that I'm concerned that you are relying on audit userspace > > > changes that might not be okay; I see the PR below, but I don't see > > > any comment on it from Steve (it is his audit userspace). I also > > > don't see a corresponding test added to the audit-testsuite, which is > > > a common requirement for new audit functionality (link below). I'm > > > also fairly certain we don't want this new BPF record to look like how > > > you've coded it up in bpf_audit_prog(); duplicating the fields with > > > audit_log_task() is wrong, you've either already got them via an > > > associated record (which you get from passing non-NULL as the first > > > parameter to audit_log_start()), or you don't because there is no > > > associated syscall/task (which you get from passing NULL as the first > > > parameter). Please revert, un-merge, etc. this patch from bpf-next; > > > it should not go into Linus' tree as written. > > > > Sorry I didn't realize there was a disagreement. > > > > Dave, could you please revert it in net-next? > > > > > Audit userspace PR: > > > * https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/pull/104 > > > > This PR does not use this new audit. It's doing everything via existing > > perf_event notification. My understanding of Jiri's email was that netlink > > style is preferred vs perf_event. Did I get it wrong? > > Perhaps confusion on my part regarding the audit-userspace PR. The > commit description mentioned the audit userspace (the daemon most > likely) fetching additional info about the BPF program and this was > the only outstanding audit-userspace PR that had any mention of BPF. > > However, getting back to netlink vs perf_event, if you want to > generate an audit record, it should happen via the audit subsystem > (and go up to the audit daemon via netlink). Paul, would following output be ok: type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1574445211.897:28015): arch=c000003e syscall=321 success=no exit=-13 a0=5 a1=7fff09ac6c60 a2=78 a3=6 items=0 ppid=1408 pid=9266 auid=1001 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0 fsgid=0 tty=pts0 ses=1 comm="test_verifier" exe="/home/jolsa/linux/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier" subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null)ARCH=x86_64 SYSCALL=bpf AUID="jolsa" UID="root" GID="root" EUID="root" SUID="root" FSUID="root" EGID="root" SGID="root" FSGID="root" type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(1574445211.897:28015): proctitle="./test_verifier" type=BPF msg=audit(1574445211.897:28016): prog-id=8103 event=LOAD type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1574445211.897:28016): arch=c000003e syscall=321 success=yes exit=14 a0=5 a1=7fff09ac6b80 a2=78 a3=0 items=0 ppid=1408 pid=9266 auid=1001 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0 fsgid=0 tty=pts0 ses=1 comm="test_verifier" exe="/home/jolsa/linux/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier" subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null)ARCH=x86_64 SYSCALL=bpf AUID="jolsa" UID="root" GID="root" EUID="root" SUID="root" FSUID="root" EGID="root" SGID="root" FSGID="root" type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(1574445211.897:28016): proctitle="./test_verifier" type=BPF msg=audit(1574445211.897:28017): prog-id=8103 event=UNLOAD I assume for audit-userspace and audit-testsuite the change will go in as github PR, right? I have the auditd change ready and will add test shortly. thanks, jirka --- include/linux/audit.h | 4 ---- kernel/auditsc.c | 2 +- kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 6 +----- 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/audit.h b/include/linux/audit.h index 18925d924c73..c69d2776d197 100644 --- a/include/linux/audit.h +++ b/include/linux/audit.h @@ -358,8 +358,6 @@ static inline void audit_ptrace(struct task_struct *t) __audit_ptrace(t); } -extern void audit_log_task(struct audit_buffer *ab); - /* Private API (for audit.c only) */ extern void __audit_ipc_obj(struct kern_ipc_perm *ipcp); extern void __audit_ipc_set_perm(unsigned long qbytes, uid_t uid, gid_t gid, umode_t mode); @@ -648,8 +646,6 @@ static inline void audit_ntp_log(const struct audit_ntp_data *ad) static inline void audit_ptrace(struct task_struct *t) { } -static inline void audit_log_task(struct audit_buffer *ab) -{ } #define audit_n_rules 0 #define audit_signals 0 #endif /* CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL */ diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c index 9bf1045fedfa..4effe01ebbe2 100644 --- a/kernel/auditsc.c +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c @@ -2545,7 +2545,7 @@ void __audit_ntp_log(const struct audit_ntp_data *ad) audit_log_ntp_val(ad, "adjust", AUDIT_NTP_ADJUST); } -void audit_log_task(struct audit_buffer *ab) +static void audit_log_task(struct audit_buffer *ab) { kuid_t auid, uid; kgid_t gid; diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c index b51ecb9644d0..e3a7fa4d7a82 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c @@ -1334,7 +1334,6 @@ static const char * const bpf_event_audit_str[] = { static void bpf_audit_prog(const struct bpf_prog *prog, enum bpf_event event) { - bool has_task_context = event == BPF_EVENT_LOAD; struct audit_buffer *ab; if (audit_enabled == AUDIT_OFF) @@ -1342,10 +1341,7 @@ static void bpf_audit_prog(const struct bpf_prog *prog, enum bpf_event event) ab = audit_log_start(audit_context(), GFP_ATOMIC, AUDIT_BPF); if (unlikely(!ab)) return; - if (has_task_context) - audit_log_task(ab); - audit_log_format(ab, "%sprog-id=%u event=%s", - has_task_context ? " " : "", + audit_log_format(ab, "prog-id=%u event=%s", prog->aux->id, bpf_event_audit_str[event]); audit_log_end(ab); } -- 2.23.0
