[PATCH] bpf: emit audit messages upon successful prog load and unload

[Steve Grubb]

Hello,

On Friday, November 22, 2019 4:19:55 PM EST Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 2:24 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Paul,
> > would following output be ok:
> > 
> > type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1574445211.897:28015): arch=c000003e syscall=321
> > success=no exit=-13 a0=5 a1=7fff09ac6c60 a2=78 a3=6 items=0 ppid=1408
> > pid=9266 auid=1001 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0
> > fsgid=0 tty=pts0 ses=1 comm="test_verifier"
> > exe="/home/jolsa/linux/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier"
> > subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
> > key=(null)ARCH=x86_64 SYSCALL=bpf AUID="jolsa" UID="root" GID="root"
> > EUID="root" SUID="root" FSUID="root" EGID="root" SGID="root"
> > FSGID="root" type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(1574445211.897:28015):
> > proctitle="./test_verifier" type=BPF msg=audit(1574445211.897:28016):
> > prog-id=8103 event=LOAD
> > 
> > type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1574445211.897:28016): arch=c000003e syscall=321
> > success=yes exit=14 a0=5 a1=7fff09ac6b80 a2=78 a3=0 items=0 ppid=1408
> > pid=9266 auid=1001 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0
> > fsgid=0 tty=pts0 ses=1 comm="test_verifier"
> > exe="/home/jolsa/linux/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier"
> > subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
> > key=(null)ARCH=x86_64 SYSCALL=bpf AUID="jolsa" UID="root" GID="root"
> > EUID="root" SUID="root" FSUID="root" EGID="root" SGID="root"
> > FSGID="root" type=PROCTITLE msg=audit(1574445211.897:28016):
> > proctitle="./test_verifier" type=BPF msg=audit(1574445211.897:28017):
> > prog-id=8103 event=UNLOAD
>
> There is some precedence in using "op=" instead of "event=" (an audit
> "event" is already a thing, using "event=" here might get confusing).
> I suppose if we are getting really nit-picky you might want to
> lower-case the LOAD/UNLOAD, but generally Steve cares more about these
> things than I do.
> 
> For reference, we have a searchable database of fields here:
> *
> https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-documentation/blob/master/specs/field
> s/field-dictionary.csv

Paul's comments are correct. We generally use op for what operation is being 
performed. This approach looks better. This is fitting in with the audit way 
of doing things. I don't think there would be any user space issues adding 
support for the BPF record.

-Steve