Re: [PATCH ghak90 V9 05/13] audit: log container info of syscalls

From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
To: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	nhorman@tuxdriver.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	dhowells@redhat.com, linux-audit@redhat.com,
	netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com,
	simo@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
	mpatel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V9 05/13] audit: log container info of syscalls
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 13:53:03 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201021175303.GH2882171@madcap2.tricolour.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2174083.ElGaqSPkdT@x2>

On 2020-10-21 12:49, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 12:39:26 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> pid is the process sending the signal, opid is the process receiving the 
> signal. I think you mean opid?

If the process sending the signal (it has a pid= field) has an audit
container identifier, it will generate a CONTAINER_ID record.  Each
process being signalled (each has an opid= field) that has an audit
container identifier will also generate a CONTAINER_ID record.  The
former will be much more common.  Which do we use in the CONTAINER_ID
record?  Having swinging fields, pid vs opid does not seem like a
reasonable solution.  Do we go back to "ref=pid=..." vs "ref=opid=..."?

> -Steve

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
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

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers