Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: emit audit messages upon successful prog load and unload

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:44:35AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:14:09AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 03:10:15PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 10:22:31PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 21:41:17 +0200 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On 10/04/2018 08:39 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:11:43 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:  
> > > > > >> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 03:50:38PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:  
> > > > [...]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If the purpose of the patch is to give user space visibility into
> > > > > >> bpf prog load/unload as a notification, then I completely agree that
> > > > > >> some notification mechanism is necessary.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yeah, I did only regard it as only that, nothing more. Some means
> > > > > of timeline and notification that can be kept in a record in user
> > > > > space and later retrieved e.g. for introspection on what has been
> > > > > loaded.
> > > > > 
> > > > > >> I've started working on such mechanism via perf ring buffer which is
> > > > > >> the fastest mechanism we have in the kernel so far.
> > > > > >> See long discussion here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/971970/  
> > 
> > cool, could you please CC me if there's another version
> > of that patchset?
> 
> will do.

thanks

> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > That one is definitely needed in any case to resolve the kallsyms
> > > > > limitations, and it does have overlap in that in either case we
> > > > > want to look at past BPF programs that have been unloaded in the
> > > > > meantime, so I don't have a strong preference either way, and the
> > > > > former is needed in any case. Though thought was that audit might
> > > > > be an option for those not running profiling daemons 24/7, but
> > > > > presumably bpftool could be extended to record these events as
> > > > > well if we don't want to reuse audit infra.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, exactly, I don't want to run a profiling daemon 24/7 to record
> > > > these events.  I do acknowledge that this perf event is relevant,
> > > > especially for catching the kernel symbols (I need that myself), but it
> > > > does not cover my use-case.
> > > > 
> > > > My use-case is to 24/7 collect and keep records in userspace, and have a
> > > > timeline of these notifications, for later retrieval.  The idea is that
> > > > our support engineers can look at these records when troubleshooting
> > > > the system.  And the plan is also to collect these records as part of
> > > > our sosreport tool, which is part of the support case.
> > > 
> > > I don't think you're implying that prog load/unload should be spamming dmesg
> > > and auditd not even running...
> > 
> > I think the problem Jesper implied is that in order to collect
> > those logs you'll need perf tool running all the time.. which
> > it's not equipped for yet
> 
> I'm not proposing to run 'perf' binary all the time.
> Setting up perf ring buffer just for these new bpf prog load/unload events
> and epolling it is simple enough to do from any application including auditd.
> selftests/bpf/ do it for bpf output events.

ok, did not think about the possibility to teach auditd talk to perf,
time to get that tool evsel/evlist/rb library ready ;-)

jirka