Re: [RFC PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V3 02/10] audit: log container info of syscalls

On 2018-07-23 09:19, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Sunday, July 22, 2018 4:55:10 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On 2018-07-22 09:32, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 4:29:30 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > > > + * audit_log_contid - report container info > > > > > > + * @tsk: task to be recorded > > > > > > + * @context: task or local context for record > > > > > > + * @op: contid string description > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > +int audit_log_contid(struct task_struct *tsk, > > > > > > + struct audit_context *context, > > > > > > char > > > > > > *op) > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > + struct audit_buffer *ab; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + if (!audit_contid_set(tsk)) > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > + /* Generate AUDIT_CONTAINER record with container ID */ > > > > > > + ab = audit_log_start(context, GFP_KERNEL, > > > > > > AUDIT_CONTAINER); > > > > > > + if (!ab) > > > > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > + audit_log_format(ab, "op=%s contid=%llu", > > > > > > + op, audit_get_contid(tsk)); > > > > > > > > > > Can you explain your reason for including an "op" field in this > > > > > record > > > > > type? I've been looking at the rest of the patches in this > > > > > patchset > > > > > and it seems to be used more as an indicator of the record's > > > > > generating context rather than any sort of audit container ID > > > > > operation. > > > > > > > > "action" might work, but that's netfilter and numeric... "kind"? > > > > Nothing else really seems to fit from a field name, type or lack of > > > > searchability perspective. > > > > > > > > Steve, do you have an opinion? > > > > > > We only have 1 sample event where we have op=task. What are the other > > > possible values? > > > > For the AUDIT_CONTAINER record we have op= "task", "target" (from the > > ptrace and signals patch), "tty". > > > > For the AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID record we have "op=set". > > Since the purpose of this record is to log the container id, I think that > is all that is needed. We can get the context from the other records in > the event. I'd suggest dropping the "op" field. Ok, the information above it for two different audit container identifier records. Which one should drop the "op=" field? Both? Or just the AUDIT_CONTAINER record? The AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID record (which might be renamed) could use it to distinguish a "set" record from a dropped audit container identifier that is no longer registered by any task or namespace.