On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 2017-08-16 18:21, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > Hi David, >> > >> > I wanted to respond to this thread to attempt some constructive feedback, >> > better late than never. I had a look at your fsopen/fsmount() patchset(s) >> > to >> > support this patchset which was interesting, but doesn't directly affect my >> > work. The primary patch of interest to the audit kernel folks (Paul Moore >> > and >> > me) is this patch while the rest of the patchset is interesting, but not >> > likely >> > to directly affect us. This patch has most of what we need to solve our >> > problem. >> > >> > Paul and I agree that audit is going to have a difficult time identifying >> > containers or even namespaces without some change to the kernel. The audit >> > subsystem in the kernel needs at least a basic clue about which container >> > caused an event to be able to report this at the appropriate level and >> > ignore >> > it at other levels to avoid a DoS. >> >> While there is some increased risk of "death by audit", this is really >> only an issue once we start supporting multiple audit daemons; simply >> associating auditable events with the container that triggered them >> shouldn't add any additional overhead (I hope). For a number of use >> cases, a single auditd running outside the containers, but recording >> all their events with some type of container attribution will be >> sufficient. This is step #1. >> >> However, we will obviously want to go a bit further and support >> multiple audit daemons on the system to allow containers to >> record/process their own events (side note: the non-container auditd >> instance will still see all the events). There are a number of ways >> we could tackle this, both via in-kernel and in-userspace record >> routing, each with their own pros/cons. However, how this works is >> going to be dependent on how we identify containers and track their >> audit events: the bits from step #1. For this reason I'm not really >> interested in worrying about the multiple auditd problem just yet; >> it's obviously important, and something to keep in mind while working >> up a solution, but it isn't something we should focus on right now. >> >> > We also agree that there will need to be some sort of trigger from >> > userspace to >> > indicate the creation of a container and its allocated resources and we're >> > not >> > really picky how that is done, such as a clone flag, a syscall or a sysfs >> > write >> > (or even a read, I suppose), but there will need to be some permission >> > restrictions, obviously. (I'd like to see capabilities used for this by >> > adding >> > a specific container bit to the capabilities bitmask.) >> >> To be clear, from an audit perspective I think the only thing we would >> really care about controlling access to is the creation and assignment >> of a new audit container ID/token, not necessarily the container >> itself. It's a small point, but an important one I think. >> >> > I doubt we will be able to accomodate all definitions or concepts of a >> > container in a timely fashion. We'll need to start somewhere with a >> > minimum >> > definition so that we can get traction and actually move forward before >> > another >> > compelling shared kernel microservice method leaves our entire community >> > behind. I'd like to declare that a container is a full set of cloned >> > namespaces, but this is inefficient, overly constricting and unnecessary >> > for >> > our needs. If we could agree on a minimum definition of a container >> > (which may >> > have only one specific cloned namespace) then we have something on which to >> > build. I could even see a container being defined by a trigger sent from >> > userspace about a process (task) from which all its children are >> > considered to >> > be within that container, subject to further nesting. >> >> I really would prefer if we could avoid defining the term "container". >> Even if we manage to get it right at this particular moment, we will >> surely be made fools a year or two from now when things change. At >> the very least lets avoid a rigid definition of container, I'll >> concede that we will probably need to have some definition simply so >> we can implement something, I just don't want the design or >> implementation to depend on a particular definition. >> >> This comment is jumping ahead a bit, but from an audit perspective I >> think we handle this by emitting an audit record whenever a container >> ID is created which describes it as the kernel sees it; as of now that >> probably means a list of namespace IDs. Richard mentions this in his >> email, I just wanted to make it clear that I think we should see this >> as a flexible mechanism. At the very least we will likely see a few >> more namespaces before the world moves on from containers. >> >> > In the simplest usable model for audit, if a container (definition implies >> > and) >> > starts a PID namespace, then the container ID could simply be the >> > container's >> > "init" process PID in the initial PID namespace. This assumes that as >> > soon as >> > that process vanishes, that entire container and all its children are >> > killed >> > off (which you've done). There may be some container orchestration systems >> > that don't use a unique PID namespace per container and that imposing this >> > will >> > cause them challenges. >> >> I don't follow how this would cause challenges if the containers do >> not use a unique PID namespace; you are suggesting using the PID from >> in the context of the initial PID namespace, yes? > > The PID of the "init" process of a container (PID=1 inside container, > but PID=containerID from the initial PID namespace perspective).
Yep. I still don't see how a container not creating a unique PID namespace presents a challenge here as the unique information would be taken from the initial PID namespace. However, based on some off-list discussions I expect this is going to be a non-issue in the next proposal. >> Regardless, I do worry that using a PID could potentially be a bit >> racy once we start jumping between kernel and userspace (audit >> configuration, logs, etc.). > > How do you think this could be racy? An event happenning before or as > the container has been defined? It's racy for the same reasons why we have the pid struct in the kernel. If the orchestrator is referencing things via a PID there is always some danger of a mixup. >> > If containers have at minimum a unique mount namespace then the root path >> > dentry inode device and inode number could be used, but there are likely >> > better >> > identifiers. Again, there may be container orchestrators that don't use a >> > unique mount namespace per container and that imposing this will cause >> > challenges. >> > >> > I expect there are similar examples for each of the other namespaces. >> >> The PID case is a bit unique as each process is going to have a unique >> PID regardless of namespaces, but even that has some drawbacks as >> discussed above. As for the other namespaces, I agree that we can't >> rely on them (see my earlier comments). > > (In general can you specify which earlier comments so we can be sure to > what you are referring?) Really? How about the race condition concerns. Come on Richard ... >> > If we could pick one namespace type for consensus for which each container >> > has >> > a unique instance of that namespace, we could use the dev/ino tuple from >> > that >> > namespace as had originally been suggested by Aristeu Rozanski more than 4 >> > years ago as part of the set of namespace IDs. I had also attempted to >> > solve this problem by using the namespace' proc inode, then switched over >> > to >> > generate a unique kernel serial number for each namespace and then went >> > back to >> > namespace proc dev/ino once Al Viro implemented nsfs: >> > v1 https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/22/662 >> > v2 https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/9/637 >> > v3 https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/20/287 >> > v4 https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/20/844 >> > v5 https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/6/25 >> > v6 https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/17/48 >> > v7 https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/12/773 >> > >> > These patches don't use a container ID, but track all namespaces in use >> > for an >> > event. This has the benefit of punting this tracking to userspace for some >> > other tool to analyse and determine to which container an event belongs. >> > This will use a lot of bandwidth in audit log files when a single >> > container ID that doesn't require nesting information to be complete >> > would be a much more efficient use of audit log bandwidth. >> >> Relying on a particular namespace to identify a containers is a >> non-starter from my perspective for all the reasons previously >> discussed. > > I'd rather not either and suspect there isn't much danger of it, but if > it is determined that there is one namespace in particular that is a > minimum requirement, I'd prefer to use that nsID instead of creating an > additional ID. > >> > If we rely only on the setting of arbitrary container names from userspace, >> > then we must provide a map or tree back to the initial audit domain for >> > that >> > running kernel to be able to differentiate between potentially identical >> > container names assigned in a nested container system. If we assign a >> > container serial number sequentially (atomic64_inc) from the kernel on >> > request >> > from userspace like the sessionID and log the creation with all nsIDs and >> > the >> > parent container serial number and/or container name, the nesting is clear >> > due >> > to lack of ambiguity in potential duplicate names in nesting. If a >> > container >> > serial number is used, the tree of inheritance of nested containers can be >> > rebuilt from the audit records showing what containers were spawned from >> > what >> > parent. >> >> I believe we are going to need a container ID to container definition >> (namespace, etc.) mapping mechanism regardless of if the container ID >> is provided by userspace or a kernel generated serial number. This >> mapping should be recorded in the audit log when the container ID is >> created/defined. > > Agreed. > >> > As was suggested in one of the previous threads, if there are any events >> > not >> > associated with a task (incoming network packets) we log the namespace ID >> > and >> > then only concern ourselves with its container serial number or container >> > name >> > once it becomes associated with a task at which point that tracking will be >> > more important anyways. >> >> Agreed. After all, a single namespace can be shared between multiple >> containers. For those security officers who need to track individual >> events like this they will have the container ID mapping information >> in the logs as well so they should be able to trace the unassociated >> event to a set of containers. >> >> > I'm not convinced that a userspace or kernel generated UUID is that useful >> > since they are large, not human readable and may not be globally unique >> > given >> > the "pets vs cattle" direction we are going with potentially identical >> > conditions in hosts or containers spawning containers, but I see no need to >> > restrict them. >> >> From a kernel perspective I think an int should suffice; after all, >> you can't have more containers then you have processes. If the >> container engine requires something more complex, it can use the int >> as input to its own mapping function. > > PIDs roll over. That already causes some ambiguity in reporting. If a > system is constantly spawning and reaping containers, especially > single-process containers, I don't want to have to worry about that ID > rolling to keep track of it even though there should be audit records of > the spawn and death of each container. There isn't significant cost > added here compared with some of the other overhead we're dealing with. Fine, make it a u64. I believe that's what I've been proposing in the off-list discussion if memory serves. A UUID or string are not acceptable from my perspective. Too big for the audit records and not really necessary anyway, a u64 should be just fine. ... and if anyone dares bring up that 640kb quote I swear I'll NACK all their patches for the next year :) >> > How do we deal with setns()? Once it is determined that action is >> > permitted, >> > given the new combinaiton of namespaces and potential membership in a >> > different >> > container, record the transition from one container to another including >> > all >> > namespaces if the latter are a different subset than the target container >> > initial set. >> >> That is a fun one, isn't it? I think this is where the container >> ID-to-definition mapping comes into play. If setns() changes the >> process such that the existing container ID is no longer valid then we >> need to do a new lookup in the table to see if another container ID is >> valid; if no established container ID mappings are valid, the >> container ID becomes "undefined". > > Hopefully we can design this stuff so that container IDs are still valid > while that transition occurs. > >> paul moore > > - RGB > > -- > Richard Guy Briggs <r...@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 -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
