Re: [PATCH ghak90 V6 05/10] audit: add contid support for signalling the audit daemon

[Ondrej Mosnacek]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 3:49 PM Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 09:40:58AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 8:58 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 5:40 AM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Add audit container identifier support to the action of signalling the
> > > > audit daemon.
> > > >
> > > > Since this would need to add an element to the audit_sig_info struct,
> > > > a new record type AUDIT_SIGNAL_INFO2 was created with a new
> > > > audit_sig_info2 struct.  Corresponding support is required in the
> > > > userspace code to reflect the new record request and reply type.
> > > > An older userspace won't break since it won't know to request this
> > > > record type.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This looks good to me.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Although I'm wondering if we shouldn't try to future-proof the
> > > AUDIT_SIGNAL_INFO2 format somehow, so that we don't need to add
> > > another AUDIT_SIGNAL_INFO3 when the need arises to add yet-another
> > > identifier to it... The simplest solution I can come up with is to add
> > > a "version" field at the beginning (set to 2 initially), then v<N>_len
> > > at the beginning of data for version <N>. But maybe this is too
> > > complicated for too little gain...
> >
> > FWIW, I believe the long term solution to this is the fabled netlink
> > attribute approach that we haven't talked about in some time, but I
> > keep dreaming about (it has been mostly on the back burner becasue 1)
> > time and 2) didn't want to impact the audit container ID work).  While
> > I'm not opposed to trying to make things like this a bit more robust
> > by adding version fields and similar things, there are still so many
> > (so very many) problems with the audit kernel/userspace interface that
> > still need to be addressed.
> >
>
> Agreed, this change as-is is in keeping with the message structure that audit
> has today, and so is ok with me, but the long term goal should be a conversion
> to netlink attributes for all audit messages.  Thats a big undertaking and
> should be addressed separately though.

Yeah, you both have a good point that doing it now and only for this
message is not necessarily better than not doing it at all. And doing
a general overhaul is out of scope for this series, obviously. I
didn't really mind the current solution before and I mind it even less
now, so consider me satisfied :) I was really just thinking out
loud...

-- 
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com>
Software Engineer, Security Technologies
Red Hat, Inc.