Re: [PATCH RFC 00/48] Add namespace support for audit

[Serge Hallyn]

Quoting Serge Hallyn (serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxx):
> Quoting Gao feng (gaofeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> > On 05/07/2013 10:20 AM, Gao feng wrote:
> > > This patchset try to add namespace support for audit.
> > > 
> > > I choose to assign audit to the user namespace.
> > > Right now,there are six kinds of namespaces, such as
> > > net, mount, ipc, pid, uts and user. the first five
> > > namespaces have special usage. the audit isn't suitable to
> > > belong to these five namespaces, so the user namespace
> > > may be the best choice.
> > > 
> > > Through I decide to make audit related resources per user
> > > namespace, but audit uses netlink to communicate between kernel
> > > space and user space, and the netlink is a private resource
> > > of per net namespace. So we need the capability to allow the
> > > netlink sockets to communicate with each other in the same user
> > > namespace even they are in different net namespace. [PATCH 2/48]
> > > does this job, it adds a new function "compare" for per netlink
> > > table to compare two sockets. it means the netlink protocols can
> > > has its own compare fuction, For other protocols, two netlink
> > > sockets are different if they belong to the different net namespace.
> > > For audit protocol, two sockets can be the same even they in different
> > > net namespace,we use user namespace not net namespace to make the
> > > decision.
> > > 
> > > There is one point that some people may dislike,in [PATCH 1/48],
> > > the kernel side audit netlink socket is created only when we create
> > > the first netns for the userns, and this userns will hold the netns
> > > until we destroy this userns.
> > > 
> > > The other patches just make the audit related resources per
> > > user namespace.
> > > 
> > > This patchset is sent as an RFC,any comments are welcome.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> thanks for sending this.  I think you need to ping the selinux folks
> for comment though.  It appears to me that, after this patchset, the
> kernel with CONFIG_USER_NS=y could not be LSPP-compliant, because
> the selinux-generated audit messages do not always go to init_user_ns.
> 
> Additionally, the only type of namespacing selinux wants is where it
> is enforced by policy compiler and installer using typenames - i.e.
> 'container1.user_t' vs 'user_t'.  Selinux does not want user namespaces
> to affect selinux enforcement at all.  (at least last I knew, several
> years ago at a mini-summit, I believe this was from Stephen Smalley).

That sort of sounds like I'm distancing myself from that, which I
don't mean to do.  I agree with the decison:  MAC (selinux, apparmor
and smack) should not be confuddled by user namespaces.  (posix caps
are, as always, a bit different).

> I think it's good to have userspace-generated audit messages (i.e.
> auditctl -m 'hi there') sent to the same user namespace.  But the
> selinux messages, near as I can tell, need to all go to init_user_ns.
> 
> thanks,
> -serge
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/