On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2020-02-05 18:05, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:28 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 2020-01-22 16:29, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 2:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Track the parent container of a container to be able to filter and
> > > > > report nesting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that we have a way to track and check the parent container of a
> > > > > container, modify the contid field format to be able to report that
> > > > > nesting using a carrat ("^") separator to indicate nesting. The
> > > > > original field format was "contid=<contid>" for task-associated records
> > > > > and "contid=<contid>[,<contid>[...]]" for network-namespace-associated
> > > > > records. The new field format is
> > > > > "contid=<contid>[^<contid>[...]][,<contid>[...]]".
> > > >
> > > > Let's make sure we always use a comma as a separator, even when
> > > > recording the parent information, for example:
> > > > "contid=<contid>[,^<contid>[...]][,<contid>[...]]"
> > >
> > > The intent here is to clearly indicate and separate nesting from
> > > parallel use of several containers by one netns. If we do away with
> > > that distinction, then we lose that inheritance accountability and
> > > should really run the list through a "uniq" function to remove the
> > > produced redundancies. This clear inheritance is something Steve was
> > > looking for since tracking down individual events/records to show that
> > > inheritance was not aways feasible due to rolled logs or search effort.
> >
> > Perhaps my example wasn't clear. I'm not opposed to the little
> > carat/hat character indicating a container's parent, I just think it
> > would be good to also include a comma *in*addition* to the carat/hat.
>
> Ah, ok. Well, I'd offer that it would be slightly shorter, slightly
> less cluttered and having already written the parser in userspace, I
> think the parser would be slightly simpler.
>
> I must admit, I was a bit puzzled by your snippet of code that was used
> as a prefix to the next item rather than as a postfix to the given item.
>
> Can you say why you prefer the comma in addition?
Generally speaking, I believe that a single delimiter is both easier
for the eyes to parse, and easier/safer for machines to parse as well.
In this particular case I think of the comma as a delimiter and the
carat as a modifier, reusing the carat as a delimiter seems like a bad
idea to me.
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
> > > > > index ef8e07524c46..68be59d1a89b 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/audit.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/audit.c
> > > >
> > > > > @@ -492,6 +493,7 @@ void audit_switch_task_namespaces(struct nsproxy *ns, struct task_struct *p)
> > > > > audit_netns_contid_add(new->net_ns, contid);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +void audit_log_contid(struct audit_buffer *ab, u64 contid);
> > > >
> > > > If we need a forward declaration, might as well just move it up near
> > > > the top of the file with the rest of the declarations.
> > >
> > > Ok.
> > >
> > > > > +void audit_log_contid(struct audit_buffer *ab, u64 contid)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct audit_contobj *cont = NULL, *prcont = NULL;
> > > > > + int h;
> > > >
> > > > It seems safer to pass the audit container ID object and not the u64.
> > >
> > > It would also be faster, but in some places it isn't available such as
> > > for ptrace and signal targets. This also links back to the drop record
> > > refcounts to hold onto the contobj until process exit, or signal
> > > delivery.
> > >
> > > What we could do is to supply two potential parameters, a contobj and/or
> > > a contid, and have it use the contobj if it is valid, otherwise, use the
> > > contid, as is done for names and paths supplied to audit_log_name().
> >
> > Let's not do multiple parameters, that begs for misuse, let's take the
> > wrapper function route:
> >
> > func a(int id) {
> > // important stuff
> > }
> >
> > func ao(struct obj) {
> > a(obj.id);
> > }
> >
> > ... and we can add a comment that you *really* should be using the
> > variant that passes an object.
>
> I was already doing that where it available, and dereferencing the id
> for the call. But I see an advantage to having both parameters supplied
> to the function, since it saves us the trouble of dereferencing it,
> searching for the id in the hash list and re-locating the object if the
> object is already available.
I strongly prefer we not do multiple parameters for the same "thing";
I would much rather do the wrapper approach as described above. I
would also like to see us use the audit container ID object as much as
possible, using a bare integer should be a last resort.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
