On 2018-07-22 09:32, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Saturday, July 21, 2018 4:29:30 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > + * 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 = audit_log_start(context, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_CONTAINER);
> > > > + if (!ab)
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > + audit_log_format(ab, "op=%s contid=%llu",
> > > > + op, audit_get_contid(tsk));
> > >
> > > Can you explain your reason for including an "op" field in this record
> > > type? I've been looking at the rest of the patches in this patchset
> > > and it seems to be used more as an indicator of the record's
> > > generating context rather than any sort of audit container ID
> > > operation.
> >
> > "action" might work, but that's netfilter and numeric... "kind"?
> > Nothing else really seems to fit from a field name, type or lack of
> > searchability perspective.
> >
> > Steve, do you have an opinion?
>
> We only have 1 sample event where we have op=task. What are the other
> possible values?
For the AUDIT_CONTAINER record we have op= "task", "target" (from the
ptrace and signals patch), "tty".
For the AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID record we have "op=set".
> -Steve
- RGB
--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx>
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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
