[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 03/10] audit: log container info of syscalls
On October 25, 2018 1:43:16 AM Richard Guy Briggs <> wrote:
> On 2018-10-24 16:55, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:15 AM Richard Guy Briggs <> wrote:
>>> On 2018-10-19 19:16, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 4:32 AM Richard Guy Briggs <> wrote:


>>>> However, I do care about the "op" field in this record. It just
>>>> doesn't make any sense; the way you are using it it is more of a
>>>> context field than an operations field, and even then why is the
>>>> context important from a logging and/or security perspective? Drop it
>>>> please.
>>> I'll rename it to whatever you like. I'd suggest "ref=". The reason I
>>> think it is important is there are multiple sources that aren't always
>>> obvious from the other records to which it is associated. In the case
>>> of ptrace and signals, there can be many target tasks listed (OBJ_PID)
>>> with no other way to distinguish the matching audit container identifier
>>> records all for one event. This is in addition to the default syscall
>>> container identifier record. I'm not currently happy with the text
>>> content to link the two, but that should be solvable (most obvious is
>>> taret PID). Throwing away this information seems shortsighted.
>> It would be helpful if you could generate real audit events
>> demonstrating the problems you are describing, as well as a more
>> standard syscall event, so we can discuss some possible solutions.
> If the auditted process is in a container and it ptraces or signals
> another process in a container, there will be two AUDIT_CONTAINER
> records for the same event that won't be identified as to which record
> belongs to which process or other record (SYSCALL vs 1+ OBJ_PID
> records). There could be many signals recorded, each with their own
> OBJ_PID record. The first is stored in the audit context and additional
> ones are stored in a chained struct that can accommodate 16 entries each.
> (See audit_signal_info(), __audit_ptrace().)
> (As a side note, on code inspection it appears that a signal target
> would get overwritten by a ptrace action if they were to happen in that
> order.)

As requested above, please respond with real audit events generated by this patchset so that we can discuss possible solutions.

paul moore

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-25 08:14    [W:0.089 / U:9.536 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site