On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 12:39 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Here is an exmple I was able to generate after updating the testsuite > script to include a signalling example of a nested audit container > identifier: > > ---- > type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(2020-10-21 10:31:16.655:6731) : proctitle=/usr/bin/perl -w containerid/test > type=CONTAINER_ID msg=audit(2020-10-21 10:31:16.655:6731) : contid=7129731255799087104^3333941723245477888 > type=OBJ_PID msg=audit(2020-10-21 10:31:16.655:6731) : opid=115583 oauid=root ouid=root oses=1 obj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 ocomm=perl > type=CONTAINER_ID msg=audit(2020-10-21 10:31:16.655:6731) : contid=3333941723245477888 > type=OBJ_PID msg=audit(2020-10-21 10:31:16.655:6731) : opid=115580 oauid=root ouid=root oses=1 obj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 ocomm=perl > type=CONTAINER_ID msg=audit(2020-10-21 10:31:16.655:6731) : contid=8098399240850112512^3333941723245477888 > type=OBJ_PID msg=audit(2020-10-21 10:31:16.655:6731) : opid=115582 oauid=root ouid=root oses=1 obj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 ocomm=perl > type=SYSCALL msg=audit(2020-10-21 10:31:16.655:6731) : arch=x86_64 syscall=kill success=yes exit=0 a0=0xfffe3c84 a1=SIGTERM a2=0x4d524554 a3=0x0 items=0 ppid=115564 pid=115567 auid=root uid=root gid=root euid=root suid=root fsuid=root egid=root sgid=root fsgid=root tty=ttyS0 ses=1 comm=perl exe=/usr/bin/perl subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=testsuite-1603290671-AcLtUulY > ---- > > There are three CONTAINER_ID records which need some way of associating with OBJ_PID records. An additional CONTAINER_ID record would be present if the killing process itself had an audit container identifier. I think the most obvious way to connect them is with a pid= field in the CONTAINER_ID record. Using a "pid=" field as a way to link CONTAINER_ID records to other records raises a few questions. What happens if/when we need to represent those PIDs in the context of a namespace? Are we ever going to need to link to records which don't have a "pid=" field? I haven't done the homework to know if either of these are a concern right now, but I worry that this might become a problem in the future. The idea of using something like "item=" is interesting. As you mention, the "item=" field does present some overlap problems with the PATH record, but perhaps we can do something similar. What if we added a "record=" (or similar, I'm not worried about names at this point) to each record, reset to 0/1 at the start of each event, and when we needed to link records somehow we could add a "related=1,..,N" field. This would potentially be useful beyond just the audit container ID work. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
