On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:27:32 -0400
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2018-10-25 06:49, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:06 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 20:42:55 -0400
> > > Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 2018-10-24 16:55, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:15 AM Richard Guy Briggs
> > > > > <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On 2018-10-19 19:16, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 4:32 AM Richard Guy Briggs
> > > > > > > <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> 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));
> > > > > > > > + audit_log_end(ab);
> > > > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(audit_log_contid);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As discussed in the previous iteration of the patch, I
> > > > > > > prefer AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID here over AUDIT_CONTAINER. If
> > > > > > > you feel strongly about keeping it as-is with
> > > > > > > AUDIT_CONTAINER I suppose I could live with that, but it
> > > > > > > is isn't my first choice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't have a strong opinion on this one, mildly
> > > > > > preferring the shorter one only because it is shorter.
> > > > >
> > > > > We already have multiple AUDIT_CONTAINER* record types, so it
> > > > > seems as though we should use "AUDIT_CONTAINER" as a prefix
> > > > > of sorts, rather than a type itself.
> > > >
> > > > I'm fine with that. I'd still like to hear Steve's input. He
> > > > had stronger opinions than me.
> > >
> > > The creation event should be separate and distinct from the
> > > continuing use when its used as a supplemental record. IOW,
> > > binding the ID to a container is part of the lifecycle and needs
> > > to be kept distinct.
> >
> > Steve's comment is pretty ambiguous when it comes to AUDIT_CONTAINER
> > vs AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID, but one could argue that AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID
> > helps distinguish the audit container id marking record and gets to
> > what I believe is the spirit of Steve's comment. Taking this in
> > context with my previous remarks, let's switch to using
> > AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID.
>
> I suspect Steve is mixing up AUDIT_CONTAINER_OP with
> AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID, confusing the fact that they are two seperate
> records. As a summary, the suggested records are:
> CONTAINER_OP audit container identifier creation
> CONTAINER audit container identifier aux record to an
> event
>
> and what Paul is suggesting (which is fine by me) is:
> CONTAINER_OP audit container identifier creation event
> CONTAINER_ID audit container identifier aux record to
> an event
>
> Steve, please indicate you are fine with this.
I thought it was:
CONTAINER_ID audit container identifier creation event
CONTAINER audit container identifier aux record to an event
Or vice versa. Don't mix up creation of the identifier with operations.
-Steve
