Re: [RFC PATCH ghak32 V2 01/13] audit: add container id

On 2018-05-18 09:56, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:56:00 -0400 > Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > During syscall events, the path info is returned in a a record > > > simply called AUDIT_PATH, cwd info is returned in AUDIT_CWD. So, > > > rather than calling the record that gets attached to everything > > > AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO, how about simply AUDIT_CONTAINER. > > > > Considering the container initiation record is different than the > > record to document the container involved in an otherwise normal > > syscall, we need two names. I don't have a strong opinion what > > they are. > > > > I'd prefer AUDIT_CONTAIN and AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO so that the two > > are different enough to be visually distinct while leaving > > AUDIT_CONTAINERID for the field type in patch 4 ("audit: add > > containerid filtering") (Sorry, I had intended AUDIT_CONTAINER for the first in that paragraph above.) > How about AUDIT_CONTAINER for the auxiliary record? The one that > starts the container, I don't have a strong opinion on. Could be > AUDIT_CONTAINER_INIT, AUDIT_CONTAINER_START, AUDIT_CONTAINERID, > AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID, or something else. The API call that sets the ID > for filtering could be AUDIT_CID or AUDIT_CONTID if that helps > decide what the initial event might be. Normally, it should match > the field being filtered. Ok, I had shortened the record field name to "contid=" to be unique enough while not using too much netlink bandwidth. I could have used "cid=" but that could be unobvious or ambiguous. I didn't want to use the full "containerid=" due to that. I suppose I could change the field name macro to AUDIT_CONTID. For the one that starts the container, I'd prefer to leave the name a bit more general than "_INIT", "_START", so maybe I'll swap them around and use AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO for the startup record, and use AUDIT_CONTAINER for the syscall auxiliary record. Does that work?