On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:25 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel(a)iogearbox.net> wrote:
On 11/22/19 12:41 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:49 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 1:46 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel(a)iogearbox.net>
wrote:
>>> On 11/20/19 10:38 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>>> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel(a)iogearbox.net>
>>>>
>>>> Allow for audit messages to be emitted upon BPF program load and
>>>> unload for having a timeline of events. The load itself is in
>>>> syscall context, so additional info about the process initiating
>>>> the BPF prog creation can be logged and later directly correlated
>>>> to the unload event.
>>>>
>>>> The only info really needed from BPF side is the globally unique
>>>> prog ID where then audit user space tooling can query / dump all
>>>> info needed about the specific BPF program right upon load event
>>>> and enrich the record, thus these changes needed here can be kept
>>>> small and non-intrusive to the core.
>>>>
>>>> Raw example output:
>>>>
>>>> # auditctl -D
>>>> # auditctl -a always,exit -F arch=x86_64 -S bpf
>>>> # ausearch --start recent -m 1334
>>>> [...]
>>>> ----
>>>> time->Wed Nov 20 12:45:51 2019
>>>> type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(1574271951.590:8974):
proctitle="./test_verifier"
>>>> type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1574271951.590:8974): arch=c000003e
syscall=321 success=yes exit=14 a0=5 a1=7ffe2d923e80 a2=78 a3=0 items=0 ppid=742 pid=949
auid=0 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0 fsgid=0 tty=pts0 ses=2
comm="test_verifier"
exe="/root/bpf-next/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier"
subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null)
>>>> type=UNKNOWN[1334] msg=audit(1574271951.590:8974): auid=0 uid=0
gid=0 ses=2 subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 pid=949
comm="test_verifier"
exe="/root/bpf-next/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier" prog-id=3260
event=LOAD
>>>> ----
>>>> time->Wed Nov 20 12:45:51 2019
>>>> type=UNKNOWN[1334] msg=audit(1574271951.590:8975): prog-id=3260
event=UNLOAD
>>>> ----
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel(a)iogearbox.net>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa(a)kernel.org>
>>>
>>> LGTM, thanks for the rebase!
>>
>> Applied to bpf-next. Thanks!
>
> [NOTE: added linux-audit to the To/CC line]
>
> Wait a minute, why was the linux-audit list not CC'd on this? Why are
> you merging a patch into -next that adds to the uapi definition *and*
> creates a new audit record while we are at -rc8?
>
> Aside from that I'm concerned that you are relying on audit userspace
> changes that might not be okay; I see the PR below, but I don't see
> any comment on it from Steve (it is his audit userspace). I also
> don't see a corresponding test added to the audit-testsuite, which is
> a common requirement for new audit functionality (link below). I'm
> also fairly certain we don't want this new BPF record to look like how
> you've coded it up in bpf_audit_prog(); duplicating the fields with
> audit_log_task() is wrong, you've either already got them via an
> associated record (which you get from passing non-NULL as the first
> parameter to audit_log_start()), or you don't because there is no
> associated syscall/task (which you get from passing NULL as the first
> parameter). Please revert, un-merge, etc. this patch from bpf-next;
> it should not go into Linus' tree as written.
Fair enough, up to you guys. My impression was that this is mainly coming
from RHEL use case [0] and given that the original patch was back in Oct
2018 [1] that you've sorted it out by now RH internally and agreed to proceed
with this patch for BPF given the rebase + resend ... seems not then. :(
For the record, I am not currently employed by RH and thus not part of
any RH internal discussions. Although, even when I was, I would still
bristle at the idea of audit patches going in without CC'ing the audit
list and getting an ACK from the audit folks. Internal discussions
within a company are fine, but the final discussion and debate should
happen on the public list.
Given the change is mostly trivial, are there any major objections
for Jiri
to follow-up? Otherwise worst case probably easier to revert in net-next.
See my previous response for more info. However, for starters the use
of audit_log_task() looks like the wrong thing to do here. I also
want to see a test for our test suite so we can catch when someone
invariably breaks this in future and fix it.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com