On 2020-10-02 15:52, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 2020-08-21 15:15, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 3:41 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 2020-07-05 11:10, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 9:22 AM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c
> > > > > index f03d3eb0752c..9e79645e5c0e 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/auditsc.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c
> > > > > @@ -1458,6 +1466,7 @@ static void audit_log_exit(void)
> > > > > struct audit_buffer *ab;
> > > > > struct audit_aux_data *aux;
> > > > > struct audit_names *n;
> > > > > + struct audit_contobj *cont;
> > > > >
> > > > > context->personality = current->personality;
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -1541,7 +1550,7 @@ static void audit_log_exit(void)
> > > > > for (aux = context->aux_pids; aux; aux = aux->next) {
> > > > > struct audit_aux_data_pids *axs = (void *)aux;
> > > > >
> > > > > - for (i = 0; i < axs->pid_count; i++)
> > > > > + for (i = 0; i < axs->pid_count; i++) {
> > > > > if (audit_log_pid_context(context, axs->target_pid[i],
> > > > > axs->target_auid[i],
> > > > > axs->target_uid[i],
> > > > > @@ -1549,14 +1558,20 @@ static void audit_log_exit(void)
> > > > > axs->target_sid[i],
> > > > > axs->target_comm[i]))
> > > > > call_panic = 1;
> > > > > + audit_log_container_id(context, axs->target_cid[i]);
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > It might be nice to see an audit event example including the
> > > > ptrace/signal information. I'm concerned there may be some confusion
> > > > about associating the different audit container IDs with the correct
> > > > information in the event.
> > >
> > > This is the subject of ghat81, which is a test for ptrace and signal
> > > records.
> > >
> > > This was the reason I had advocated for an op= field since there is a
> > > possibility of multiple contid records per event.
> >
> > I think an "op=" field is the wrong way to link audit container ID to
> > a particular record. It may be convenient, but I fear that it would
> > be overloading the field too much.
>
> Ok, after looking at the field dictionary how about item, rel, ref or rec?
> Item perhaps could be added to the OBJ_PID records, but that might be
> overloading a field that is already used in PATH records. "rel" for
> relates-to, "ref" for reference to, "rec" for record... Perhaps pid=
> would be enough to tie this record to the OBJ_PID record or the SYSCALL
> record, but in the case of network events, the pid may refer to a kernel
> thread.
>
> > Like I said above, I think it would be good to see an audit event
> > example including the ptrace/signal information. This way we can talk
> > about it on-list and hash out the various solutions if it proves to be
> > a problem.
>
> See the list posting from 2020-09-29 "auditing signals" pointing to
> ghat81 test case about testing ptrace and signals from 18 months ago.
>
> I think I have a way to generate a signal to multiple targets in one
> syscall... The added challenge is to also give those targets different
> audit container identifiers.
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.
> > > > > @@ -1575,6 +1590,14 @@ static void audit_log_exit(void)
> > > > >
> > > > > audit_log_proctitle();
> > > > >
> > > > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > + cont = _audit_contobj_get(current);
> > > > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > > + audit_log_container_id(context, cont);
> > > > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > + _audit_contobj_put(cont);
> > > > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > >
> > > > Do we need to grab an additional reference for the audit container
> > > > object here? We don't create any additional references here that
> > > > persist beyond the lifetime of this function, right?
> > >
> > > Why do we need another reference? There's one for each pointer pointing
> > > to it and so far we have just one from this task. Or are you thinking
> > > of the contid hash list, which is only added to when a task points to it
> > > and gets removed from that list when the last task stops pointing to it.
> > > Later that gets more complicated with network namespaces and nested
> > > container objects. For now we just needed it while generating the
> > > record, then it gets freed.
> >
> > I don't think we need to grab an additional reference here, that is
> > why I asked the question. The code above grabs a reference for the
> > audit container ID object associated with the current task and then
> > drops it before returning; if the current task, and it's associated
> > audit container ID object, disappears in the middle of the function
> > we've got much bigger worries :)
>
> I misunderstood your question previously thinking you wanted yet another
> reference taken in this case, when in fact it was the opposite and you
> thought the one taken here was superfluous.
>
> I don't *need* to grab the additional references here, but those are the
> accessor functions that exist, so I either create sub-accessor functions
> without the refcount manipulations that called from the primary accessor
> functions or open code a reduncancy... The locking has been updated to
> protect the _put by a spin-lock. Now that I look at it, the 4th to 7th
> lines could be bypassed by a cont == NULL check.
>
> It is somewhat hidden now since this sequence of 7 commands has been
> abstracted into another function that is called from a second location.
>
> > paul moore
>
> - RGB
- 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
