Re: [PATCH RFC 00/48] Add namespace support for audit

Quoting Serge Hallyn (serge.hallyn(a)ubuntu.com): > Quoting Gao feng (gaofeng(a)cn.fujitsu.com): >> On 05/07/2013 10:20 AM, Gao feng wrote: >>> This patchset try to add namespace support for audit. >>> >>> I choose to assign audit to the user namespace. >>> Right now,there are six kinds of namespaces, such as >>> net, mount, ipc, pid, uts and user. the first five >>> namespaces have special usage. the audit isn't suitable to >>> belong to these five namespaces, so the user namespace >>> may be the best choice. >>> >>> Through I decide to make audit related resources per user >>> namespace, but audit uses netlink to communicate between kernel >>> space and user space, and the netlink is a private resource >>> of per net namespace. So we need the capability to allow the >>> netlink sockets to communicate with each other in the same user >>> namespace even they are in different net namespace. [PATCH 2/48] >>> does this job, it adds a new function "compare" for per netlink >>> table to compare two sockets. it means the netlink protocols can >>> has its own compare fuction, For other protocols, two netlink >>> sockets are different if they belong to the different net namespace. >>> For audit protocol, two sockets can be the same even they in different >>> net namespace,we use user namespace not net namespace to make the >>> decision. >>> >>> There is one point that some people may dislike,in [PATCH 1/48], >>> the kernel side audit netlink socket is created only when we create >>> the first netns for the userns, and this userns will hold the netns >>> until we destroy this userns. >>> >>> The other patches just make the audit related resources per >>> user namespace. >>> >>> This patchset is sent as an RFC,any comments are welcome. > > Hi, > > thanks for sending this. I think you need to ping the selinux folks > for comment though. It appears to me that, after this patchset, the > kernel with CONFIG_USER_NS=y could not be LSPP-compliant, because > the selinux-generated audit messages do not always go to init_user_ns. > > Additionally, the only type of namespacing selinux wants is where it > is enforced by policy compiler and installer using typenames - i.e. > 'container1.user_t' vs 'user_t'. Selinux does not want user namespaces > to affect selinux enforcement at all. (at least last I knew, several > years ago at a mini-summit, I believe this was from Stephen Smalley). That sort of sounds like I'm distancing myself from that, which I don't mean to do. I agree with the decison: MAC (selinux, apparmor and smack) should not be confuddled by user namespaces. (posix caps are, as always, a bit different).

> I think it's good to have userspace-generated audit messages (i.e. > auditctl -m 'hi there') sent to the same user namespace. But the > selinux messages, near as I can tell, need to all go to init_user_ns. > > thanks, > -serge > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > Containers(a)lists.linux-foundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/