Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH ghak32 V2 01/13] audit: add container id | From | Casey Schaufler <> | Date | Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:15:46 -0700 |
| |
On 4/18/2018 5:46 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:41 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: >> On 4/18/2018 4:47 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:00 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> Implement the proc fs write to set the audit container ID of a process, >>>> emitting an AUDIT_CONTAINER record to document the event. >>>> ... >>>> >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h >>>> index d258826..1b82191 100644 >>>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h >>>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h >>>> @@ -796,6 +796,7 @@ struct task_struct { >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL >>>> kuid_t loginuid; >>>> unsigned int sessionid; >>>> + u64 containerid; >>> This one line addition to the task_struct scares me the most of >>> anything in this patchset. Why? It's a field named "containerid" in >>> a perhaps one of the most widely used core kernel structures; the >>> possibilities for abuse are endless, and it's foolish to think we >>> would ever be able to adequately police this. >> If we can get the LSM infrastructure managed task blobs from >> module stacking in ahead of this we could create a trivial security >> module to manage this. It's not as if there aren't all sorts of >> interactions between security modules and the audit system already. > While yes, there are plenty of interactions between the two, it is > possible to use audit without the LSMs and I would like to preserve > that.
Fair enough.
> Further, I don't want to entangle two very complicated code > changes or make the audit container ID effort dependent on LSM > stacking.
Also fair, although the use case for container audit IDs is already pulling in audit, namespaces (yeah, I know it's not necessary for a container to use namespaces) security modules (stacked and/or namespaced), cgroups and who knows what else.
> You're a good salesman Casey, but you're not that good ;)
I have to keep the skills sharpened somehow!
OK, I'll grant that this isn't a great fit.
| |