On Thursday, May 14, 2015 09:10:56 PM Oren Laadan wrote:
> [focusing on "containers id" - snipped the rest away]
>
> I am unfamiliar with the audit subsystem, but work with namespaces in other
> contexts. Perhaps the term "container" is overloaded here. The definition
> suggested by Steve in this thread makes sense to me: "a combination of
> namespaces". I imagine people may want to audit subsets of namespaces.
>
> For namespaces, can use a string like "A:B:C:D:E:F" as an identifier for a
> particular combination, where A-F are respective namespaces identifiers.
> (Can be taken for example from /proc/PID/ns/{mnt,uts,ipc,user,pid,net}).
> That will even be grep-able to locate records related to a particular
> subset
> of namespaces. So a "container" in the classic meaning would have all A-F
> unique and different from the init process, but processes separated only by
> e.g. mnt-ns and net-ns will differ from the init process in A and F.
>
> (If a string is a no go, then perhaps combine the IDs in a unique way into a
> super ID).
As has been mentioned in every other email in this thread, the kernel has no
concept of a container, it is a userspace idea and trying to generate a
meaningful value in the kernel is a mistake in my opinion. My current opinion
is that we allow userspace to set a container ID token as it sees fit and the
kernel will just use the value provided by userspace.
--
paul moore
security @ redhat
--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
