lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH ghak124 v3] audit: log nftables configuration change events
On 2021-02-11 15:26, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 2021-02-11 11:29, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:16 AM Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 09:20:49AM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > iptables, ip6tables, arptables and ebtables table registration,
> > > > replacement and unregistration configuration events are logged for the
> > > > native (legacy) iptables setsockopt api, but not for the
> > > > nftables netlink api which is used by the nft-variant of iptables in
> > > > addition to nftables itself.
> > > >
> > > > Add calls to log the configuration actions in the nftables netlink api.
> > >
> > > As discussed offline already, these audit notifications are pretty hefty
> > > performance-wise. In an internal report, 300% restore time of a ruleset
> > > containing 70k set elements is measured.
> >
> > If you're going to reference offline/off-list discussions in a post to
> > a public list, perhaps the original discussion shouldn't have been
> > off-list ;) If you don't involve us in the discussion, we have to
> > waste a lot of time getting caught up.
>
> Here's part of that discussion:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918013

Here's the rest:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921624

> > > If I'm not mistaken, iptables emits a single audit log per table, ipset
> > > doesn't support audit at all. So I wonder how much audit logging is
> > > required at all (for certification or whatever reason). How much
> > > granularity is desired?
> >
> > That's a question for the people who track these certification
> > requirements, which is thankfully not me at the moment. Unless
> > somebody else wants to speak up, Steve Grubb is probably the only
> > person who tracks that sort of stuff and comments here.
> >
> > I believe the netfilter auditing was mostly a nice-to-have bit of
> > functionality to help add to the completeness of the audit logs, but I
> > could very easily be mistaken. Richard put together those patches, he
> > can probably provide the background/motivation for the effort.
>
> It was added because an audit test that normally produced records from
> iptables on one distro stopped producing any records on another.
> Investigation led to the fact that on the first it was using
> iptables-legacy API and on the other it was using iptables-nft API.
>
> > > I personally would notify once per transaction. This is easy and quick.
>
> This was the goal. iptables was atomic. nftables appears to no longer
> be so. If I have this wrong, please show how that works.
>
> > > Once per table or chain should be acceptable, as well. At the very
> > > least, we should not have to notify once per each element. This is the
> > > last resort of fast ruleset adjustments. If we lose it, people are
> > > better off with ipset IMHO.
> > >
> > > Unlike nft monitor, auditd is not designed to be disabled "at will". So
> > > turning it off for performance-critical workloads is no option.
>
> If it were to be disabled "at will" it would defeat the purpose of
> audit. Those records can already be filtered, or audit can be disabled,
> but let us look at rationalizing the current nftables records first.
>
> > Patches are always welcome, but it might be wise to get to the bottom
> > of the certification requirements first.
> >
> > paul moore
>
> - RGB

- 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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-12 21:51    [W:0.245 / U:0.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site