On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:38 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2019-10-21 15:53, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 9:39 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 2019-09-18 21:22, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > Provide a mechanism similar to CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL to explicitly give a
> > > > process in a non-init user namespace the capability to set audit
> > > > container identifiers.
> > > >
> > > > Use audit netlink message types AUDIT_GET_CAPCONTID 1027 and
> > > > AUDIT_SET_CAPCONTID 1028. The message format includes the data
> > > > structure:
> > > > struct audit_capcontid_status {
> > > > pid_t pid;
> > > > u32 enable;
> > > > };
> > >
> > > Paul, can I get a review of the general idea here to see if you're ok
> > > with this way of effectively extending CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL for the sake of
> > > setting contid from beyond the init user namespace where capable() can't
> > > reach and ns_capable() is meaningless for these purposes?
> >
> > I think my previous comment about having both the procfs and netlink
> > interfaces apply here. I don't see why we need two different APIs at
> > the start; explain to me why procfs isn't sufficient. If the argument
> > is simply the desire to avoid mounting procfs in the container, how
> > many container orchestrators can function today without a valid /proc?
>
> Ok, sorry, I meant to address that question from a previous patch
> comment at the same time.
>
> It was raised by Eric Biederman that the proc filesystem interface for
> audit had its limitations and he had suggested an audit netlink
> interface made more sense.
I'm sure you've got it handy, so I'm going to be lazy and ask: archive
pointer to Eric's comments? Just a heads-up, I'm really *not* a fan
of using the netlink interface for this, so unless Eric presents a
super compelling reason for why we shouldn't use procfs I'm inclined
to stick with /proc.
> The intent was to switch to the audit netlink interface for contid,
> capcontid and to add the audit netlink interface for loginuid and
> sessionid while deprecating the proc interface for loginuid and
> sessionid. This was alluded to in the cover letter, but not very clear,
> I'm afraid. I have patches to remove the contid and loginuid/sessionid
> interfaces in another tree which is why I had forgotten to outline that
> plan more explicitly in the cover letter.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
