On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 03:01:09PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Gao feng <gaofeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On 06/20/2013 11:02 AM, Gao feng wrote: > >> If we don't tie audit to user namespace, there is still one problem. > > > > One more problem. some audit messages are generated by some net subsystem > > such as netfilter. If we don't tie audit to user namespace, we have no > > idea where these audit messages should go. there is no relationship between > > net namespace and audit namespace while we can get user namespace through > > net user namespace. > > I am in favor of the user namespace tie in. > > I am in favor of running a per user namespace audit filter once per user > namespace walking up the user namespace hierarchy. Each filter would > deliver messages to a different userspace audit daemon. > > Until we agreement to go that far I am not certain the kernel generated > audit messages should go anywhere except to the global audit daemon. > > I think on an individual basis we can look at kernel audit messages and > see if they should go to just the global user namespace. Just the user > namspace of the relevant network stack. Or if the message should go to > the audit daemon of every user namespace that is an ancestor of some > starting user namespace. > > But please let's error on the side of caution here. Let's say I'd like to use userns but still have a single and global auditd. Dropping the capability will be required for that? That sounds bad. The fact new user namespaces will want to control the separated audit namespace doesn't require tie in. -- Aristeu _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
