Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V1 01/12] audit: add container id
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1519930146.git.rgb@redhat.com>
 <2e5d93ee46feca915a101c2fc3062da674a98223.1519930146.git.rgb@redhat.com>
 <216d1ab1-531b-9185-2e31-34f162f08aad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180316035837.ddnqvbyrbp3fdk7e@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
Cc:     cgroups@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, mszeredi@redhat.com, luto@kernel.org,
        jlayton@redhat.com, carlos@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        dhowells@redhat.com, simo@redhat.com, trondmy@primarydata.com,
        eparis@parisplace.org, serge@hallyn.com, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        madzcar@gmail.com
From:   Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Apr 2018 14:45:14 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180316035837.ddnqvbyrbp3fdk7e@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <f966fa52-da4b-3d74-0848-1f0b08e57fd9@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 03/15/2018 11:58 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 2018-03-15 16:27, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> On 03/01/2018 02:41 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
>>> Implement the proc fs write to set the audit container ID of a process,
>>> emitting an AUDIT_CONTAINER record to document the event.
>>>
>>> This is a write from the container orchestrator task to a proc entry of
>>> the form /proc/PID/containerid where PID is the process ID of the newly
>>> created task that is to become the first task in a container, or an
>>> additional task added to a container.
>>>
>>> The write expects up to a u64 value (unset: 18446744073709551615).
>>>
>>> This will produce a record such as this:
>>> type=UNKNOWN[1333] msg=audit(1519903238.968:261): op=set pid=596 uid=0 subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 auid=0 tty=pts0 ses=1 opid=596 old-contid=18446744073709551615 contid=123455 res=0
>>>
>>> The "op" field indicates an initial set.  The "pid" to "ses" fields are
>>> the orchestrator while the "opid" field is the object's PID, the process
>>> being "contained".  Old and new container ID values are given in the
>>> "contid" fields, while res indicates its success.
>>>
>>> It is not permitted to self-set, unset or re-set the container ID.  A
>>> child inherits its parent's container ID, but then can be set only once
>>> after.
>>>
>>> See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/32
>>>
>>>
>>>    /* audit_rule_data supports filter rules with both integer and string
>>>     * fields.  It corresponds with AUDIT_ADD_RULE, AUDIT_DEL_RULE and
>>> diff --git a/kernel/auditsc.c b/kernel/auditsc.c
>>> index 4e0a4ac..0ee1e59 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/auditsc.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c
>>> @@ -2073,6 +2073,92 @@ int audit_set_loginuid(kuid_t loginuid)
>>>    	return rc;
>>>    }
>>>
>>> +static int audit_set_containerid_perm(struct task_struct *task, u64 containerid)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct task_struct *parent;
>>> +	u64 pcontainerid, ccontainerid;
>>> +	pid_t ppid;
>>> +
>>> +	/* Don't allow to set our own containerid */
>>> +	if (current == task)
>>> +		return -EPERM;
>>> +	/* Don't allow the containerid to be unset */
>>> +	if (!cid_valid(containerid))
>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>> +	/* if we don't have caps, reject */
>>> +	if (!capable(CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL))
>>> +		return -EPERM;
>>> +	/* if containerid is unset, allow */
>>> +	if (!audit_containerid_set(task))
>>> +		return 0;
>> I am wondering whether there should be a check for the target process that
>> will receive the containerid to not have CAP_SYS_ADMIN that would otherwise
>> allow it to arbitrarily unshare()/clone() and leave the set of namespaces
>> that may make up the container whose containerid we assign here?
> This is a reasonable question.  This has been debated and I understood
> the conclusion was that without a clear definition of a "container", the
> task still remains in that container that just now has more
> sub-namespaces (in the case of hierarchical namespaces), we don't want
> to restrict it in such a way and that allows it to create nested
> containers.  I see setns being more problematic if it could switch to
> another existing namespace that was set up by the orchestrator for a
> different container.  The coming v2 patchset acknowledges this situation
> with the network namespace being potentially shared by multiple
> containers.

Are you going to post v2 soon? We would like to build on top of it for 
IMA namespacing and auditing inside of IMA namespaces.

    Stefan