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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 12/9/19 3:56 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 7:15 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 10:49:34PM +0100, 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 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > >>> Co-developed-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > >> > > > > >> 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!
