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?
> > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/audit.h | 1 +
> > > > kernel/audit.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > > kernel/audit.h | 1 +
> > > > kernel/auditfilter.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> > > > kernel/auditsc.c | 2 +-
> > > > 5 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > > > @@ -2705,9 +2741,10 @@ int audit_set_contid(struct task_struct *task, u64 contid)
> > > > if (!ab)
> > > > return rc;
> > > >
> > > > - audit_log_format(ab,
> > > > - "op=set opid=%d contid=%llu old-contid=%llu",
> > > > - task_tgid_nr(task), contid, oldcontid);
> > > > + audit_log_format(ab, "op=set opid=%d contid=", task_tgid_nr(task));
> > > > + audit_log_contid(ab, contid);
> > > > + audit_log_format(ab, " old-contid=");
> > > > + audit_log_contid(ab, oldcontid);
> > >
> > > This is an interesting case where contid and old-contid are going to
> > > be largely the same, only the first (current) ID is going to be
> > > different; do we want to duplicate all of those IDs?
> >
> > At first when I read your comment, I thought we could just take contid
> > and drop oldcontid, but if it fails, we still want all the information,
> > so given the way I've set up the search code in userspace, listing only
> > the newest contid in the contid field and all the rest in oldcontid
> > could be a good compromise.
>
> This is along the lines of what I was thinking.
Good.
> paul moore
- RGB
--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635
