On Fri, 18 May 2018 11:21:06 -0400
Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2018-05-18 09:56, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:56:00 -0400
> > Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > During syscall events, the path info is returned in a a record
> > > > simply called AUDIT_PATH, cwd info is returned in AUDIT_CWD. So,
> > > > rather than calling the record that gets attached to everything
> > > > AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO, how about simply AUDIT_CONTAINER.
> > >
> > > Considering the container initiation record is different than the
> > > record to document the container involved in an otherwise normal
> > > syscall, we need two names. I don't have a strong opinion what
> > > they are.
> > >
> > > I'd prefer AUDIT_CONTAIN and AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO so that the two
> > > are different enough to be visually distinct while leaving
> > > AUDIT_CONTAINERID for the field type in patch 4 ("audit: add
> > > containerid filtering")
>
> (Sorry, I had intended AUDIT_CONTAINER for the first in that paragraph
> above.)
>
> > How about AUDIT_CONTAINER for the auxiliary record? The one that
> > starts the container, I don't have a strong opinion on. Could be
> > AUDIT_CONTAINER_INIT, AUDIT_CONTAINER_START, AUDIT_CONTAINERID,
> > AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID, or something else. The API call that sets the ID
> > for filtering could be AUDIT_CID or AUDIT_CONTID if that helps
> > decide what the initial event might be. Normally, it should match
> > the field being filtered.
>
> Ok, I had shortened the record field name to "contid=" to be unique
> enough while not using too much netlink bandwidth. I could have used
> "cid=" but that could be unobvious or ambiguous. I didn't want to use
> the full "containerid=" due to that. I suppose I could change the
> field name macro to AUDIT_CONTID.
>
> For the one that starts the container, I'd prefer to leave the name a
> bit more general than "_INIT", "_START", so maybe I'll swap them
> around and use AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO for the startup record, and use
> AUDIT_CONTAINER for the syscall auxiliary record.
>
> Does that work?
I'll go along with that. Thanks. But making that swap frees up
AUDIT_CONTAINER_ID which could be the first event. But
AUDIT_CONTAINER_INFO is also fine with me.
Best Regards,
-Steve
