lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: RFC(v2): Audit Kernel Container IDs
From
Date
On 10/17/2017 8:28 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 07:59 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 10/17/2017 5:31 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 21:42 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 16, 2017 8:33:40 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> There is such a thing, but the kernel doesn't know about it
>>>>> yet.  This same situation exists for loginuid and sessionid
>>>>> which
>>>>> are userspace concepts that the kernel tracks for the
>>>>> convenience
>>>>> of userspace.  As for its name, I'm not particularly picky, so
>>>>> if
>>>>> you don't like CAP_CONTAINER_* then I'm fine with
>>>>> CAP_AUDIT_CONTAINERID.  It really needs to be distinct from
>>>>> CAP_AUDIT_WRITE and CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL since we don't want to
>>>>> give
>>>>> the ability to set a containerID to any process that is able to
>>>>> do
>>>>> audit logging (such as vsftpd) and similarly we don't want to
>>>>> give
>>>>> the orchestrator the ability to control the setup of the audit
>>>>> daemon.
>>>> A long time ago, we were debating what should guard against rouge
>>>> processes from setting the loginuid. Casey argued that the
>>>> ability to
>>>> set the loginuid means they have the ability to control the audit
>>>> trail. That means that it should be guarded by CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL.
>>>> I
>>>> think the same logic applies today. 
>>> The difference is that with loginuid you needed to give processes
>>> able
>>> to audit also the ability to change it. You do not want to tie the
>>> ability to change container ids to the ability to audit. You want
>>> to be
>>> able to do audit stuff (within the container) without allowing it
>>> to
>>> change the container id.
>> Without a *kernel* policy on containerIDs you can't say what
>> security policy is being exempted.
> The policy has been basically stated earlier.

No. The expected user space behavior has been stated.

> A way to track a set of processes from a specific point in time
> forward. The name used is "container id", but it could be anything.

Then you want Jose Bollo's PTAGS. It's insane to add yet another
arbitrary ID to the task for a special purpose. Add a general tagging
mechanism instead. We could add a gazillion new id's, each with it's
own capability if we head down this road.

> This marker is mostly used by user space to track process hierarchies
> without races, these processes can be very privileged, and must not be
> allowed to change the marker themselves when granted the current common
> capabilities.

Let's be clear. What happens in user space stays in user space.
The kernel does not give a fig about user space policy. There has
to be a kernel policy involved that a capability can exempt.

> Is this a good enough description ? If not can you clarify your
> expectations ?

The kernel enforces kernel policy. Capabilities provide a mechanism
to mark a process as exempt from some aspect of kernel policy. If
you don't have a kernel policy, you don't get a capability. Clear?

>
>> Without that you can't say what capability is (or isn't)
>> appropriate.
> See if the above is sufficient please.
>
>> You need a reason to have a capability check that makes sense in the
>> context of the kernel security policy.
> I think the proposal had a reason, we may debate on whether that reason
> is good enough.
>
>> Since we don't know what a container is in the kernel,
> Please do not fixate on the word container.
>
>> that's pretty hard. We don't create "fuzzy" capabilities
>> based on the trendy application behavior of the moment. If the
>> behavior is not related it audit, there's no reason for it, and
>> if it is, CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL works just fine. If this doesn't work
>> in your application security model I suggest that is where you
>> need to make changes.
> The authors of the proposal came to the conclusion that kernel
> assistance is needed. It would be nice to discuss the merits of it.
> If you do not understand why the request has been made it would be more
> useful to ask specific questions to understand what and why is the ask.

I understand pretty darn well.

> Pushing back is fine, if you have understood the problem and have valid
> arguments against a kernel level solution (and possibly suggestions for
> a working user space solution), otherwise you are not adding value to
> the discussion.

The presumption is that the request is reasonable. Adding a capability
in support of an undefined behavior is unreasonable. Based on the discussion,
CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL is completely rational. I understand that it would be
difficult to support your application privilege model. I would like to look
into helping out with that, but have too many burning knives in the air
just now.

>
> Simo.
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-17 18:11    [W:0.068 / U:3.648 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site