Re: [PATCH RFC 00/48] Add namespace support for audit

From: Eric Paris
Date: Tue Jun 11 2013 - 09:50:38 EST

On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 13:59 +0800, Gao feng wrote:
> On 06/11/2013 05:24 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Gao feng (gaofeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> >> On 06/07/2013 06:47 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> >>> Quoting Serge Hallyn (serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxx):
> >>>> Quoting Gao feng (gaofeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> >>>>> On 05/07/2013 10:20 AM, Gao feng wrote:

> In my option, the audit rules(inode, tree_list, filter) , some of audit
> controller related resources(enabled,pid,portid...) and skb queue, audit
> netlink sockets,kauditd thread should be per-userns. The audit user message
> which generated by the user in container should be per-userns too.
> Since netns is not implemented as a hierarchy, and the network related
> resources are not global. so network related audit message should be per-userns too.
> The security related audit message should be send to init user namespace
> as we discussed before. Maybe tty related audit message should be send
> to init user namespace too, I have no idea now.
> The next step, I will post a new patchset which only make the audit user
> message and the basic audit resource per userns. I think this patchset
> will easy to be reviewed and accepted, And will not influence the host.
> This patchset contains the below patches:

I think this would be easier for us do from a certification and
doumentation PoV if we had an audit namespace, not tied to the user
namespace. creating a new audit namespace should require
CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL in the user namespace which created the current audit

Does that make sense? I don't mind messages staying completely inside
the current namespace, but that means we can't give unpriv users (even
if they have priv in their user namespace) a new audit namespace...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at