Re: [PATCH ghak90 V6 08/10] audit: add containerid filtering

[Paul Moore]

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 4:37 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2019-05-30 10:34, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:20 AM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2019-05-29 18:16, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 11:41 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Implement audit container identifier filtering using the AUDIT_CONTID
> > > > > field name to send an 8-character string representing a u64 since the
> > > > > value field is only u32.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sending it as two u32 was considered, but gathering and comparing two
> > > > > fields was more complex.
> > > > >
> > > > > The feature indicator is AUDIT_FEATURE_BITMAP_CONTAINERID.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please see the github audit kernel issue for the contid filter feature:
> > > > >   https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/91
> > > > > Please see the github audit userspace issue for filter additions:
> > > > >   https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/issues/40
> > > > > Please see the github audit testsuiite issue for the test case:
> > > > >   https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-testsuite/issues/64
> > > > > Please see the github audit wiki for the feature overview:
> > > > >   https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/wiki/RFE-Audit-Container-ID
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  include/linux/audit.h      |  1 +
> > > > >  include/uapi/linux/audit.h |  5 ++++-
> > > > >  kernel/audit.h             |  1 +
> > > > >  kernel/auditfilter.c       | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  kernel/auditsc.c           |  4 ++++
> > > > >  5 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/auditfilter.c b/kernel/auditfilter.c
> > > > > index 63f8b3f26fab..407b5bb3b4c6 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/auditfilter.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/auditfilter.c
> > > > > @@ -1206,6 +1224,31 @@ int audit_comparator(u32 left, u32 op, u32 right)
> > > > >         }
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > > +int audit_comparator64(u64 left, u32 op, u64 right)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +       switch (op) {
> > > > > +       case Audit_equal:
> > > > > +               return (left == right);
> > > > > +       case Audit_not_equal:
> > > > > +               return (left != right);
> > > > > +       case Audit_lt:
> > > > > +               return (left < right);
> > > > > +       case Audit_le:
> > > > > +               return (left <= right);
> > > > > +       case Audit_gt:
> > > > > +               return (left > right);
> > > > > +       case Audit_ge:
> > > > > +               return (left >= right);
> > > > > +       case Audit_bitmask:
> > > > > +               return (left & right);
> > > > > +       case Audit_bittest:
> > > > > +               return ((left & right) == right);
> > > > > +       default:
> > > > > +               BUG();
> > > >
> > > > A little birdy mentioned the BUG() here as a potential issue and while
> > > > I had ignored it in earlier patches because this is likely a
> > > > cut-n-paste from another audit comparator function, I took a closer
> > > > look this time.  It appears as though we will never have an invalid op
> > > > value as audit_data_to_entry()/audit_to_op() ensure that the op value
> > > > is a a known good value.  Removing the BUG() from all the audit
> > > > comparators is a separate issue, but I think it would be good to
> > > > remove it from this newly added comparator; keeping it so that we
> > > > return "0" in the default case seems reasoanble.
> > >
> > > Fair enough.  That BUG(); can be removed.
> >
> > Please send a fixup patch for this.
>
> The fixup patch is trivial.

Yes, I know.

> The rebase to v5.2-rc1 audit/next had merge
> conflicts with four recent patchsets.  It may be simpler to submit a new
> patchset and look at a diff of the two sets.  I'm testing the rebase
> now.

Great thanks.  Although you might want to hold off a bit on posting
the next revision until we sort out the discussion which is happening
in patch 02/10; unfortunately I fear we may need to change some of the
logic.

--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com