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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1533065887.git.rgb@redhat.com> <34017c395d03a213d6b0d49b9964429bd32b283d.1533065887.git.rgb@redhat.com>
 <CAHC9VhSv4hWGHiaaOfuBrRQKdp2YG5RtqXQbFXg7j7LNEhO2XQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181024151439.lavhanabsyxdrdvo@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <CAHC9VhRF1vsxM-k0Lw-9NqS9b9rgXRRBu0tq4ajdFpMqUxiH4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181025004255.zl7p7j6gztouh2hh@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <20181025080638.771621a3@ivy-bridge>
 <CAHC9VhR02siURgadQs0EikcOm0d_TPAi4jJYCx4NkA=wQ5rjSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181025122732.4j4rbychjse3gemt@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <20181025175745.5b2b13e9@ivy-bridge>
 <20181025173830.4yklhnrydt5qvr67@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <CAHC9VhScaG8aOFYRV5hPXEKob1QRth5YFEbHNY=ZgKKAKxBBsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181025235527.15a39d75@ivy-bridge> <e1d8a8cf-5013-ffbe-923b-604851de836d@schaufler-ca.com>
In-Reply-To: <e1d8a8cf-5013-ffbe-923b-604851de836d@schaufler-ca.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Sun, 28 Oct 2018 03:53:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhREHOMD2LrKyeN0HJLOVMPnz9kUNiv5d24omQYkXoVSBw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 03/10] audit: log container info of syscalls
To:     casey@schaufler-ca.com
Cc:     sgrubb@redhat.com, luto@kernel.org, rgb@redhat.com,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        dhowells@redhat.com, carlos@redhat.com, linux-audit@redhat.com,
        netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        simo@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:13 AM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/2018 2:55 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > ...
> > And historically speaking setting audit loginuid produces a LOGIN
> > event, so it only makes sense to consider binding container ID to
> > container as a CONTAINER event. For other supplemental records, we name
> > things what they are: PATH, CWD, SOCKADDR, etc. So, CONTAINER_ID makes
> > sense. CONTAINER_OP sounds like its for operations on a container. Do
> > we have any operations on a container?
>
> The answer has to be "no", because containers are, by emphatic assertion,
> not kernel constructs. Any CONTAINER_OP event has to come from user space.
> I think.

It is very important that we do not confuse operations on the audit
container id with operations on the containers themselves.  Of course
at a higher level, e.g. audit log analysis, we want to equate the two,
and if the container runtime which manages the audit container id is
sane that should be a reasonable assumption, but in this particular
patchset AUDIT_CONTAINER_OP is referring to operations involving just
the audit container id.

If there is a need for additional container operation auditing (note
well that I did not say audit container id here) then those audit
records can, and should, be generated by the container runtime itself,
similar to what we do with libvirt for virtualization.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com