Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 18 Feb 2021 08:28:43 -0500
From:   Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
To:     Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Cc:     Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
        netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, twoerner@redhat.com,
        Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>, tgraf@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak124 v3] audit: log nftables configuration change
 events
Message-ID: <20210218132843.GP3141668@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
References: <f9da8b5dbf2396b621c77c17b5b1123be5aa484e.1591275439.git.rgb@redhat.com>
 <20210211151606.GX3158@orbyte.nwl.cc>
 <CAHC9VhTNQW9d=8GCW-70vAEMh8-LXviP+JHFC2-YkuitokLLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210211202628.GP2015948@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
 <20210211220930.GC2766@breakpoint.cc>
 <20210217234131.GN3141668@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
 <20210218082207.GJ2766@breakpoint.cc>
 <20210218124211.GO3141668@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
 <20210218125248.GB22944@breakpoint.cc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210218125248.GB22944@breakpoint.cc>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-02-18 13:52, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 2021-02-18 09:22, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > > No.  There is a hierarchy, e.g. you can't add a chain without first
> > > adding a table, BUT in case the table was already created by an earlier
> > > transaction it can also be stand-alone.
> > 
> > Ok, so there could be a stand-alone chain mod with one table, then a
> > table add of a different one with a "higher ranking" op...
> 
> Yes, that can happen.

Ok, can I get one more clarification on this "hierarchy"?  Is it roughly
in the order they appear in nf_tables_commit() after step 3?  It appears
it might be mostly already.  If it isn't already, would it be reasonable
to re-order them?  Would you suggest a different order?

(snip GET bits, that's now clear, thank you)

> > such that it would be desirable to filter them out
> > to reduce noise in that single log line if it is attempted to list all
> > the change ops?  It almost sounds like it would be better to do one
> > audit log line for each table for each family, and possibly for each op
> > to avoid the need to change userspace.  This would already be a
> > significant improvement picking the highest ranking op.
> 
> I think i understand what you'd like to do.  Yes, that would reduce
> the log output a lot.

Would the generation change id be useful outside the kernel?  What
exactly does it look like?  I don't quite understand the genmask purpose.

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635