On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:00 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
 Add container ID support to ptrace and signals.  In particular, the
"op"
 field provides a way to label the auxiliary record to which it is
 associated.
 Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com>
 ---
  include/linux/audit.h | 16 +++++++++++-----
  kernel/audit.c        | 12 ++++++++----
  kernel/audit.h        |  2 ++
  kernel/auditsc.c      | 19 +++++++++++++++----
  4 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) 
...
 diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
 index a12f21f..b238be5 100644
 --- a/kernel/audit.c
 +++ b/kernel/audit.c
 @@ -142,6 +142,7 @@ struct audit_net {
  kuid_t         audit_sig_uid = INVALID_UID;
  pid_t          audit_sig_pid = -1;
  u32            audit_sig_sid = 0;
 +u64            audit_sig_cid = INVALID_CID;
  /* Records can be lost in several ways:
     0) [suppressed in audit_alloc]
 @@ -1438,6 +1439,7 @@ static int audit_receive_msg(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr
*nlh)
                         memcpy(sig_data->ctx, ctx, len);
                         security_release_secctx(ctx, len);
                 }
 +               sig_data->cid = audit_sig_cid;
                 audit_send_reply(skb, seq, AUDIT_SIGNAL_INFO, 0, 0,
                                  sig_data, sizeof(*sig_data) + len);
                 kfree(sig_data);
 @@ -2051,20 +2053,22 @@ void audit_log_session_info(struct audit_buffer *ab)
  /*
   * audit_log_container_info - report container info
 - * @tsk: task to be recorded
   * @context: task or local context for record
 + * @op: containerid string description
 + * @containerid: container ID to report
   */
 -int audit_log_container_info(struct task_struct *tsk, struct audit_context *context)
 +int audit_log_container_info(struct audit_context *context,
 +                             char *op, u64 containerid)
  {
         struct audit_buffer *ab;
 -       if (!audit_containerid_set(tsk))
 +       if (!cid_valid(containerid))
                 return 0;
         /* Generate AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO with container ID */
         ab = audit_log_start(context, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO);
         if (!ab)
                 return -ENOMEM;
 -       audit_log_format(ab, "contid=%llu", audit_get_containerid(tsk));
 +       audit_log_format(ab, "op=%s contid=%llu", op, containerid);
         audit_log_end(ab);
         return 0;
  } 
Let's get these changes into the first patch where
audit_log_container_info() is defined.  Why?  This inserts a new field
into the record which is a no-no.  Yes, it is one single patchset, but
they are still separate patches and who knows which patches a given
distribution and/or tree may decide to backport.
 diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c
 index 2bba324..2932ef1 100644
 --- a/kernel/auditsc.c
 +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c
 @@ -113,6 +113,7 @@ struct audit_aux_data_pids {
         kuid_t                  target_uid[AUDIT_AUX_PIDS];
         unsigned int            target_sessionid[AUDIT_AUX_PIDS];
         u32                     target_sid[AUDIT_AUX_PIDS];
 +       u64                     target_cid[AUDIT_AUX_PIDS];
         char                    target_comm[AUDIT_AUX_PIDS][TASK_COMM_LEN];
         int                     pid_count;
  };
 @@ -1422,21 +1423,27 @@ static void audit_log_exit(struct audit_context *context, struct
task_struct *ts
         for (aux = context->aux_pids; aux; aux = aux->next) {
                 struct audit_aux_data_pids *axs = (void *)aux;
 -               for (i = 0; i < axs->pid_count; i++)
 +               for (i = 0; i < axs->pid_count; i++) {
 +                       char axsn[sizeof("aux0xN ")];
 +
 +                       sprintf(axsn, "aux0x%x", i);
                         if (audit_log_pid_context(context, axs->target_pid[i],
                                                   axs->target_auid[i],
                                                   axs->target_uid[i],
                                                   axs->target_sessionid[i],
                                                   axs->target_sid[i],
 -                                                 axs->target_comm[i]))
 +                                                 axs->target_comm[i])
 +                           && audit_log_container_info(context, axsn,
axs->target_cid[i])) 
Shouldn't this be an OR instead of an AND?
                                 call_panic = 1;
 +               }
         }
         if (context->target_pid &&
             audit_log_pid_context(context, context->target_pid,
                                   context->target_auid, context->target_uid,
                                   context->target_sessionid,
 -                                 context->target_sid, context->target_comm))
 +                                 context->target_sid, context->target_comm)
 +           && audit_log_container_info(context, "target",
context->target_cid)) 
Same question.
                         call_panic = 1;
         if (context->pwd.dentry && context->pwd.mnt) { 
-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com