On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:41 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4/18/2018 4:47 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:00 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Implement the proc fs write to set the audit container ID of a process,
>>> emitting an AUDIT_CONTAINER record to document the event.
>>> ...
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>>> index d258826..1b82191 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>>> @@ -796,6 +796,7 @@ struct task_struct {
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL
>>> kuid_t loginuid;
>>> unsigned int sessionid;
>>> + u64 containerid;
>> This one line addition to the task_struct scares me the most of
>> anything in this patchset. Why? It's a field named "containerid" in
>> a perhaps one of the most widely used core kernel structures; the
>> possibilities for abuse are endless, and it's foolish to think we
>> would ever be able to adequately police this.
>
> If we can get the LSM infrastructure managed task blobs from
> module stacking in ahead of this we could create a trivial security
> module to manage this. It's not as if there aren't all sorts of
> interactions between security modules and the audit system already.
While yes, there are plenty of interactions between the two, it is
possible to use audit without the LSMs and I would like to preserve
that. Further, I don't want to entangle two very complicated code
changes or make the audit container ID effort dependent on LSM
stacking.
You're a good salesman Casey, but you're not that good ;)
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
