Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@xxxxxxxxxx):
>> So the kernel socket(s) would be per network namespace, but we divide
>> messages per user namespace? Which socket do I send them on,
>> considering the possible crazy many<->many mappings between user and
>> network namespaces. It all makes me cry a little.
>
> not many-many - each netns is owned by exactly one userns. The userns
> from which the netns was created.
Doh. I missed this question and I think I misunderstood when Eric
Paris was talking about multicasting audit messages.
If what we are really talking about is sending some audit messages to
an auditd in a container what appears obvious to me is that we define
a per user namespace capability something like CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL. That
does most or all of what CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL does in the init user
namespace. Especially capturing audit_pid and audit_nlk_portid to
decide who to send the message to.
Something like:
struct audit_control {
int initialized;
pid_t pid;
u32 nlk_portid;
};
struct user_namespace {
...
struct audit_contol audit;
};
Then the transmission would be something like:
struct user_namespace *user_ns = ...;
for (;;) {
if (ns->audit_pid) {
err = netlink_unicast(ns->audit.sock, skb, ns->audit.nlk_portid, 0);
}
if (!ns->parent)
break;
ns = ns->parent;
}
If someone finds auditd interesting enough to do that work.
In general I think it only makes sense if we can reuse the existing
userspace auditd.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
