Re: [PATCH ghak90 V7 20/21] audit: add capcontid to set contid outside init_user_ns
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 7:58 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 2019-10-21 17:43, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:38 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 2019-10-21 15:53, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 9:39 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> > > > On 2019-09-18 21:22, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > > Provide a mechanism similar to CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL to explicitly
give a
> > > > > process in a non-init user namespace the capability to set
audit
> > > > > container identifiers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Use audit netlink message types AUDIT_GET_CAPCONTID 1027 and
> > > > > AUDIT_SET_CAPCONTID 1028. The message format includes the data
> > > > > structure:
> > > > > struct audit_capcontid_status {
> > > > > pid_t pid;
> > > > > u32 enable;
> > > > > };
> > > >
> > > > Paul, can I get a review of the general idea here to see if
you're ok
> > > > with this way of effectively extending CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL for the sake
of
> > > > setting contid from beyond the init user namespace where capable()
can't
> > > > reach and ns_capable() is meaningless for these purposes?
> > >
> > > I think my previous comment about having both the procfs and netlink
> > > interfaces apply here. I don't see why we need two different APIs at
> > > the start; explain to me why procfs isn't sufficient. If the
argument
> > > is simply the desire to avoid mounting procfs in the container, how
> > > many container orchestrators can function today without a valid /proc?
> >
> > Ok, sorry, I meant to address that question from a previous patch
> > comment at the same time.
> >
> > It was raised by Eric Biederman that the proc filesystem interface for
> > audit had its limitations and he had suggested an audit netlink
> > interface made more sense.
>
> I'm sure you've got it handy, so I'm going to be lazy and ask: archive
> pointer to Eric's comments? Just a heads-up, I'm really *not* a fan
> of using the netlink interface for this, so unless Eric presents a
> super compelling reason for why we shouldn't use procfs I'm inclined
> to stick with /proc.
It was actually a video call with Eric and Steve where that was
recommended, so I can't provide you with any first-hand communication
about it. I'll get more details...
Yeah, that sort of information really needs to be on the list.
So, with that out of the way, could you please comment on the
general
idea of what was intended to be the central idea of this mechanism to be
able to nest containers beyond the initial user namespace (knowing that
a /proc interface is available and the audit netlink interface isn't
necessary for it to work and the latter can be easily removed)?
I'm not entirely clear what you are asking about, are you asking why I
care about nesting container orchestrators? Simply put, it is not
uncommon for the LXC/LXD folks to see nested container orchestrators,
so I felt it was important to support that use case. When we
originally started this effort we probably should have done a better
job reaching out to the LXC/LXD folks, we may have caught this
earlier. Regardless, we caught it, and it looks like we are on our
way to supporting it (that's good).
Are you asking why I prefer the procfs approach to setting/getting the
audit container ID? For one, it makes it easier for a LSM to enforce
the audit container ID operations independent of the other audit
control APIs. It also provides a simpler interface for container
orchestrators. Both seem like desirable traits as far as I'm
concerned.
> > The intent was to switch to the audit netlink interface for
contid,
> > capcontid and to add the audit netlink interface for loginuid and
> > sessionid while deprecating the proc interface for loginuid and
> > sessionid. This was alluded to in the cover letter, but not very clear,
> > I'm afraid. I have patches to remove the contid and loginuid/sessionid
> > interfaces in another tree which is why I had forgotten to outline that
> > plan more explicitly in the cover letter.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com