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.1554732921.git.rgb@redhat.com> <baa5f3c6d4aa7f9fec903ebb51949f3ac743d067.1554732921.git.rgb@redhat.com>
 <CAFqZXNvZTb-OrCHugEc2TrW57EX_f_+absARpR1bUBN3_uavdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhRbxefdpTX5ct+1=uccv9b2GH+imDPPbB90RBWSjMcgbA@mail.gmail.com> <20190409134852.GB15660@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190409134852.GB15660@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
From:   Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:00:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFqZXNvzOOjXt7p7dgP14D6TeNKPkSULdtdhapYs5d1H366YjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V6 05/10] audit: add contid support for signalling
 the audit daemon
To:     Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>,
        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, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 3:49 PM Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 09:40:58AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 8:58 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 5:40 AM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > Add audit container identifier support to the action of signalling the
> > > > audit daemon.
> > > >
> > > > Since this would need to add an element to the audit_sig_info struct,
> > > > a new record type AUDIT_SIGNAL_INFO2 was created with a new
> > > > audit_sig_info2 struct.  Corresponding support is required in the
> > > > userspace code to reflect the new record request and reply type.
> > > > An older userspace won't break since it won't know to request this
> > > > record type.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > This looks good to me.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > Although I'm wondering if we shouldn't try to future-proof the
> > > AUDIT_SIGNAL_INFO2 format somehow, so that we don't need to add
> > > another AUDIT_SIGNAL_INFO3 when the need arises to add yet-another
> > > identifier to it... The simplest solution I can come up with is to add
> > > a "version" field at the beginning (set to 2 initially), then v<N>_len
> > > at the beginning of data for version <N>. But maybe this is too
> > > complicated for too little gain...
> >
> > FWIW, I believe the long term solution to this is the fabled netlink
> > attribute approach that we haven't talked about in some time, but I
> > keep dreaming about (it has been mostly on the back burner becasue 1)
> > time and 2) didn't want to impact the audit container ID work).  While
> > I'm not opposed to trying to make things like this a bit more robust
> > by adding version fields and similar things, there are still so many
> > (so very many) problems with the audit kernel/userspace interface that
> > still need to be addressed.
> >
>
> Agreed, this change as-is is in keeping with the message structure that audit
> has today, and so is ok with me, but the long term goal should be a conversion
> to netlink attributes for all audit messages.  Thats a big undertaking and
> should be addressed separately though.

Yeah, you both have a good point that doing it now and only for this
message is not necessarily better than not doing it at all. And doing
a general overhaul is out of scope for this series, obviously. I
didn't really mind the current solution before and I mind it even less
now, so consider me satisfied :) I was really just thinking out
loud...

-- 
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com>
Software Engineer, Security Technologies
Red Hat, Inc.