On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:30 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 2020-02-13 16:44, Paul Moore wrote:
> This is a bit of a thread-hijack, and for that I apologize, but
> another thought crossed my mind while thinking about this issue
> further ... Once we support multiple auditd instances, including the
> necessary record routing and duplication/multiple-sends (the host
> always sees *everything*), we will likely need to find a way to "trim"
> the audit container ID (ACID) lists we send in the records. The
> auditd instance running on the host/initns will always see everything,
> so it will want the full container ACID list; however an auditd
> instance running inside a container really should only see the ACIDs
> of any child containers.
Agreed. This should be easy to check and limit, preventing an auditd
from seeing any contid that is a parent of its own contid.
> For example, imagine a system where the host has containers 1 and 2,
> each running an auditd instance. Inside container 1 there are
> containers A and B. Inside container 2 there are containers Y and Z.
> If an audit event is generated in container Z, I would expect the
> host's auditd to see a ACID list of "1,Z" but container 1's
auditd
> should only see an ACID list of "Z". The auditd running in container
> 2 should not see the record at all (that will be relatively
> straightforward). Does that make sense? Do we have the record
> formats properly designed to handle this without too much problem (I'm
> not entirely sure we do)?
I completely agree and I believe we have record formats that are able to
handle this already.
I'm not convinced we do. What about the cases where we have a field
with a list of audit container IDs? How do we handle that?
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com