[PATCH ghak90 V5 09/10] audit: add support for containerid to network namespaces

Paul Moore paul at paul-moore.com
Fri Apr 5 02:06:10 UTC 2019


On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 5:40 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2019-04-02 07:31, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 10:50:03AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 2:35 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > Audit events could happen in a network namespace outside of a task
> > > > context due to packets received from the net that trigger an auditing
> > > > rule prior to being associated with a running task.  The network
> > > > namespace could be in use by multiple containers by association to the
> > > > tasks in that network namespace.  We still want a way to attribute
> > > > these events to any potential containers.  Keep a list per network
> > > > namespace to track these audit container identifiiers.
> > > >
> > > > Add/increment the audit container identifier on:
> > > > - initial setting of the audit container identifier via /proc
> > > > - clone/fork call that inherits an audit container identifier
> > > > - unshare call that inherits an audit container identifier
> > > > - setns call that inherits an audit container identifier
> > > > Delete/decrement the audit container identifier on:
> > > > - an inherited audit container identifier dropped when child set
> > > > - process exit
> > > > - unshare call that drops a net namespace
> > > > - setns call that drops a net namespace
> > > >
> > > > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/92
> > > > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-testsuite/issues/64
> > > > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/wiki/RFE-Audit-Container-ID
> > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/linux/audit.h | 19 ++++++++++++
> > > >  kernel/audit.c        | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > >  kernel/nsproxy.c      |  4 +++
> > > >  3 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

...

> > > > +               list_for_each_entry_rcu(cont, contid_list, list)
> > > > +                       if (cont->id == contid) {
> > > > +                               refcount_inc(&cont->refcount);
> > > > +                               goto out;
> > > > +                       }
> > > > +       cont = kmalloc(sizeof(struct audit_contid), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > >
> > > If you had to guess, what do you think is going to be more common:
> > > bumping the refcount of an existing entry in the list, or adding a new
> > > entry?  I'm asking because I always get a little nervous when doing
> > > allocations while holding a spinlock.  Yes, you are doing it with
> > > GFP_ATOMIC, but it still seems like something to try and avoid if this
> > > is going to approach 50%.  However, if the new entry is rare then the
> > > extra work of always doing the allocation before taking the lock and
> > > then freeing it afterwards might be a bad tradeoff.
> > >
> > I think this is another way of asking, will multiple processes exist in the same
> > network namespace?  That is to say, will we expect a process to create a net
> > namespace, and then have other processes enter that namespace (thereby
> > triggering multiple calls to audit_netns_contid_add with the same net pointer
> > and cont id).  Given that the kubernetes notion of a pod is almost by definition
> > multiple containers sharing a network namespace, I think the answer is that we
> > will be strongly biased towards the refcount_inc case, rather than the kmalloc
> > case.  I could be wrong, but I think this is likely already in the optimized
> > order.
>
> I had a stab at doing a GFP_KERNEL alloc before the spinlock and releasing it
> after if it wasn't needed (in Patch#1 below).  I also went one step further and
> converted it to kmem_cache (in Patch#2 below).
>
> > > My gut feeling says we might do about as many allocations as refcount
> > > bumps, but I could be thinking about this wrong.
> > >
> > > Moving the allocation outside the spinlock might also open the door to
> > > doing this as GFP_KERNEL, which is a good thing, but I haven't looked
> > > at the callers to see if that is possible (it may not be).  That's an
> > > exercise left to the patch author (if he hasn't done that already).
>
> Both appear to work, but after successfully running both the contid test and
> audit_testsuite, once I start to push that test system a bit harder I end up
> with a deadlock warning.
>
> I am having trouble understanding why since it happens both without and with
> the kmem_cache options, so it must be another part of the code that is
> triggering it.  The task_lock is being held at this point in
> audit_set_contid().  I haven't tried changing this alloc over to a GFP_ATOMIC
> to see if that prevents it, just as a debugging check...
> At this point, I'm inclined to leave it as it was without these two patches
> since it works and there doesn't seem to be an obvious best way given the
> uncertainty of the potential workloads.

I'm definitely not a mm expert, but I wonder if you might be able to
get this working using GFP_NOFS, but I see just now that they
recommend you *not* use GFP_NOFS; even if this did solve the problem,
it's probably not the right approach.

I'm okay with leaving it as-is with GFP_ATOMIC.  My original response
to this was more of a question about optimizing for a given use case,
having something that works is far more important.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com


More information about the Containers mailing list