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.1577736799.git.rgb@redhat.com> <20200204231454.oxa7pyvuxbj466fj@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
 <CAHC9VhQquokw+7UOU=G0SsD35UdgmfysVKCGCE87JVaoTkbisg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3142237.YMNxv0uec1@x2> <CAHC9VhTiCHQbp2SwK0Xb1QgpUZxOQ26JKKPsVGT0ZvMqx28oPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhS09b_fM19tn7pHZzxfyxcHnK+PJx80Z9Z1hn8-==4oLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200312193037.2tb5f53yeisfq4ta@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <CAHC9VhQoVOzy_b9W6h+kmizKr1rPkC4cy5aYoKT2i0ZgsceNDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200313185900.y44yvrfm4zxa5lfk@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20200313185900.y44yvrfm4zxa5lfk@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:56:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhR2zCCE5bjH75rSwfLC7TJGFj4RBnrtcOoUiqVp9q5TaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V8 07/16] audit: add contid support for signalling
 the audit daemon
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc:     Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>, linux-audit@redhat.com,
        nhorman@tuxdriver.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, dhowells@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>,
        mpatel@redhat.com, Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 2:59 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2020-03-13 12:29, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:30 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On 2020-02-13 16:44, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > This is a bit of a thread-hijack, and for that I apologize, but
> > > > another thought crossed my mind while thinking about this issue
> > > > further ... Once we support multiple auditd instances, including the
> > > > necessary record routing and duplication/multiple-sends (the host
> > > > always sees *everything*), we will likely need to find a way to "trim"
> > > > the audit container ID (ACID) lists we send in the records.  The
> > > > auditd instance running on the host/initns will always see everything,
> > > > so it will want the full container ACID list; however an auditd
> > > > instance running inside a container really should only see the ACIDs
> > > > of any child containers.
> > >
> > > Agreed.  This should be easy to check and limit, preventing an auditd
> > > from seeing any contid that is a parent of its own contid.
> > >
> > > > For example, imagine a system where the host has containers 1 and 2,
> > > > each running an auditd instance.  Inside container 1 there are
> > > > containers A and B.  Inside container 2 there are containers Y and Z.
> > > > If an audit event is generated in container Z, I would expect the
> > > > host's auditd to see a ACID list of "1,Z" but container 1's auditd
> > > > should only see an ACID list of "Z".  The auditd running in container
> > > > 2 should not see the record at all (that will be relatively
> > > > straightforward).  Does that make sense?  Do we have the record
> > > > formats properly designed to handle this without too much problem (I'm
> > > > not entirely sure we do)?
> > >
> > > I completely agree and I believe we have record formats that are able to
> > > handle this already.
> >
> > I'm not convinced we do.  What about the cases where we have a field
> > with a list of audit container IDs?  How do we handle that?
>
> I don't understand the problem.  (I think you crossed your 1/2 vs
> A/B/Y/Z in your example.) ...

It looks like I did, sorry about that.

> ... Clarifying the example above, if as you
> suggest an event happens in container Z, the hosts's auditd would report
>         Z,^2
> and the auditd in container 2 would report
>         Z,^2
> but if there were another auditd running in container Z it would report
>         Z
> while the auditd in container 1 or A/B would see nothing.

Yes.  My concern is how do we handle this to minimize duplicating and
rewriting the records?  It isn't so much about the format, although
the format is a side effect.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com