On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 9:47 AM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 2020-03-28 23:11, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 5:02 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 2020-03-23 20:16, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 6:03 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> > > > On 2020-03-18 18:06, Paul Moore wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > I hope we can do better than string manipulations in the kernel.
I'd
> > > > > much rather defer generating the ACID list (if possible), than
> > > > > generating a list only to keep copying and editing it as the
record is
> > > > > sent.
> > > >
> > > > At the moment we are stuck with a string-only format.
> > >
> > > Yes, we are. That is another topic, and another set of changes I've
> > > been deferring so as to not disrupt the audit container ID work.
> > >
> > > I was thinking of what we do inside the kernel between when the record
> > > triggering event happens and when we actually emit the record to
> > > userspace. Perhaps we collect the ACID information while the event is
> > > occurring, but we defer generating the record until later when we have
> > > a better understanding of what should be included in the ACID list.
> > > It is somewhat similar (but obviously different) to what we do for
> > > PATH records (we collect the pathname info when the path is being
> > > resolved).
> >
> > Ok, now I understand your concern.
> >
> > In the case of NETFILTER_PKT records, the CONTAINER_ID record is the
> > only other possible record and they are generated at the same time with
> > a local context.
> >
> > In the case of any event involving a syscall, that CONTAINER_ID record
> > is generated at the time of the rest of the event record generation at
> > syscall exit.
> >
> > The others are only generated when needed, such as the sig2 reply.
> >
> > We generally just store the contobj pointer until we actually generate
> > the CONTAINER_ID (or CONTAINER_OP) record.
>
> Perhaps I'm remembering your latest spin of these patches incorrectly,
> but there is still a big gap between when the record is generated and
> when it is sent up to the audit daemon. Most importantly in that gap
> is the whole big queue/multicast/unicast mess.
So you suggest generating that record on the fly once it reaches the end
of the audit_queue just before being sent? That sounds... disruptive.
Each audit daemon is going to have its own queues, so by the time it
ends up in a particular queue, we'll already know its scope and would
have the right list of contids to print in that record.
I'm not suggesting any particular solution, I'm just pointing out a
potential problem. It isn't clear to me that you've thought about how
we generate a multiple records, each with the correct ACID list
intended for a specific audit daemon, based on a single audit event.
Explain to me how you intend that to work and we are good. Be
specific because I'm not convinced we are talking on the same plane
here.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com