On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 04:47:17PM -0700, Mark Moseley wrote: > > BTW, what makes you think that container's root is even reachable from > > "the host's /"? There is no such thing as "root of the OS itself"; > > different > > processes can (and in case of containers definitely do) run in different > > namespaces. With entirely different filesystems mounted in those, and > > no promise whatsoever that any specific namespace happens to have all > > filesystems mounted somewhere in it... > > Nothing beyond guesswork, since it's been a while since I've played > with LXC. In any case, I was struggling a bit for the correct > terminology. > > Am I similarly off-base with regards to the chroot'd scenario?
chroot case is going to be reachable from namespace root, but I seriously doubt that pathname relative to that will be more useful... Again, relying on pathnames for forensics (or security in general) is a serious mistake (cue unprintable comments about apparmor and similar varieties of snake oil). And using audit as poor man's ktrace analog is... misguided, to put it very mildly. -- Linux-audit mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
