Re: [PATCH ghak90 V6 08/10] audit: add containerid filtering

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 4:37 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On 2019-05-30 10:34, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:20 AM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > > On 2019-05-29 18:16, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 11:41 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Implement audit container identifier filtering using the AUDIT_CONTID > > > > > field name to send an 8-character string representing a u64 since the > > > > > value field is only u32. > > > > > > > > > > Sending it as two u32 was considered, but gathering and comparing two > > > > > fields was more complex. > > > > > > > > > > The feature indicator is AUDIT_FEATURE_BITMAP_CONTAINERID. > > > > > > > > > > Please see the github audit kernel issue for the contid filter feature: > > > > > https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/91 > > > > > Please see the github audit userspace issue for filter additions: > > > > > https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/issues/40 > > > > > Please see the github audit testsuiite issue for the test case: > > > > > https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-testsuite/issues/64 > > > > > Please see the github audit wiki for the feature overview: > > > > > https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/wiki/RFE-Audit-Container-ID > > > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge(a)hallyn.com&gt; > > > > > Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman(a)tuxdriver.com&gt; > > > > > Reviewed-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > > > --- > > > > > include/linux/audit.h | 1 + > > > > > include/uapi/linux/audit.h | 5 ++++- > > > > > kernel/audit.h | 1 + > > > > > kernel/auditfilter.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > kernel/auditsc.c | 4 ++++ > > > > > 5 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/auditfilter.c b/kernel/auditfilter.c > > > > > index 63f8b3f26fab..407b5bb3b4c6 100644 > > > > > --- a/kernel/auditfilter.c > > > > > +++ b/kernel/auditfilter.c > > > > > @@ -1206,6 +1224,31 @@ int audit_comparator(u32 left, u32 op, u32 right) > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > +int audit_comparator64(u64 left, u32 op, u64 right) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + switch (op) { > > > > > + case Audit_equal: > > > > > + return (left == right); > > > > > + case Audit_not_equal: > > > > > + return (left != right); > > > > > + case Audit_lt: > > > > > + return (left < right); > > > > > + case Audit_le: > > > > > + return (left <= right); > > > > > + case Audit_gt: > > > > > + return (left > right); > > > > > + case Audit_ge: > > > > > + return (left >= right); > > > > > + case Audit_bitmask: > > > > > + return (left & right); > > > > > + case Audit_bittest: > > > > > + return ((left & right) == right); > > > > > + default: > > > > > + BUG(); > > > > > > > > A little birdy mentioned the BUG() here as a potential issue and while > > > > I had ignored it in earlier patches because this is likely a > > > > cut-n-paste from another audit comparator function, I took a closer > > > > look this time. It appears as though we will never have an invalid op > > > > value as audit_data_to_entry()/audit_to_op() ensure that the op value > > > > is a a known good value. Removing the BUG() from all the audit > > > > comparators is a separate issue, but I think it would be good to > > > > remove it from this newly added comparator; keeping it so that we > > > > return "0" in the default case seems reasoanble. > > > > > > Fair enough. That BUG(); can be removed. > > > > Please send a fixup patch for this. > > The fixup patch is trivial. Yes, I know. > The rebase to v5.2-rc1 audit/next had merge > conflicts with four recent patchsets. It may be simpler to submit a new > patchset and look at a diff of the two sets. I'm testing the rebase > now. Great thanks. Although you might want to hold off a bit on posting the next revision until we sort out the discussion which is happening in patch 02/10; unfortunately I fear we may need to change some of the logic.

paul moore www.paul-moore.com