Re: [PATCH V6 05/10] audit: log creation and deletion of namespace instances

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com> writes:
> As Eric, and others, have stated, the container concept is a userspace idea, 
> not a kernel idea; the kernel only knows, and cares about, namespaces.  This 
> is unlikely to change.
>
> However, as Steve points out, there is precedence for the kernel to record 
> userspace tokens for the sake of audit.  Personally I'm not a big fan of this 
> in general, but I do recognize that it does satisfy a legitimate need.  Think 
> of things like auid and the sessionid as necessary evils; audit is already 
> chock full of evilness I doubt one more will doom us all to hell.
>
> Moving forward, I'd like to see the following:

> * Create a container ID token (unsigned 32-bit integer?), similar to 
> auid/sessionid, that is set by userspace and carried by the kernel to be used 
> in audit records.  I'd like to see some discussion on how we manage this, e.g. 
> how do handle container ID inheritance, how do we handle nested containers 
> (setting the containerid when it is already set), do we care if multiple 
> different containers share the same namespace config, etc.?


> Can we all live with this?  If not, please suggest some alternate ideas; 
> simply shouting "IT'S ALL CRAP!" isn't helpful for anyone ... it may be true, 
> but it doesn't help us solve the problem ;)

Without stopping and defining what someone means by container I think it
is pretty much nonsense.

Should every vsftp connection get a container every?  Every chrome tab?

At some of the connections per second numbers I have seen we might
exhaust a 32bit number in an hour or two.  Will any of that make sense
to someone reading the audit logs?

Without considerning that container creation is an unprivileged
operation I think it is pretty much nonsense.  Do I get to say I am any
container I want?  That would seem to invalidate the concept of
userspace setting a container id.

How does any of this interact with setns?  AKA entering a container?

I will go as far as looking at patches.  If someone comes up with
a mission statement about what they are actually trying to achieve and a
mechanism that actually achieves that, and that allows for containers to
nest we can talk about doing something like that.

But for right now I just hear proposals for things that make no sense
and can not possibly work.  Not least because it will require modifying
every program that creates a container and who knows how many of them
there are.  Especially since you don't need to be root.  Modifying
/usr/bin/unshare seems a little far out to me.

Eric