On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 06:41:31PM -0500, 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?
my bad sorry, I included only maintainers
there was previous RFC post:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20191120143810.8852-1-jolsa@kernel.org/
but I guess the patch followed up too fast
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.
the original audit approach for BPF notification was declined
in favor of perf-based approach:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=153866106418036&w=2
We tried to add perf based notification support to auditd,
but it did not fit and was nack-ed by audit guys:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2019-August/msg00004.html
so we returned to the original approach
this is the perf-based notification approach, that got nacked
I'll check on these
thanks,
jirka