On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 5:02 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2020-03-23 20:16, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 6:03 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2020-03-18 18:06, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > I hope we can do better than string manipulations in the kernel. I'd > > > > much rather defer generating the ACID list (if possible), than > > > > generating a list only to keep copying and editing it as the record is > > > > sent. > > > > > > At the moment we are stuck with a string-only format. > > > > Yes, we are. That is another topic, and another set of changes I've > > been deferring so as to not disrupt the audit container ID work. > > > > I was thinking of what we do inside the kernel between when the record > > triggering event happens and when we actually emit the record to > > userspace. Perhaps we collect the ACID information while the event is > > occurring, but we defer generating the record until later when we have > > a better understanding of what should be included in the ACID list. > > It is somewhat similar (but obviously different) to what we do for > > PATH records (we collect the pathname info when the path is being > > resolved). > > Ok, now I understand your concern. > > In the case of NETFILTER_PKT records, the CONTAINER_ID record is the > only other possible record and they are generated at the same time with > a local context. > > In the case of any event involving a syscall, that CONTAINER_ID record > is generated at the time of the rest of the event record generation at > syscall exit. > > The others are only generated when needed, such as the sig2 reply. > > We generally just store the contobj pointer until we actually generate > the CONTAINER_ID (or CONTAINER_OP) record. Perhaps I'm remembering your latest spin of these patches incorrectly, but there is still a big gap between when the record is generated and when it is sent up to the audit daemon. Most importantly in that gap is the whole big queue/multicast/unicast mess. You don't need to show me code, but I would like to see some sort of plan for dealing with multiple nested audit daemons. Basically I just want to make sure we aren't painting ourselves into a corner with this approach; and if for some horrible reason we are, I at least want us to be aware of what we are getting ourselves into. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
