-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 165
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
new(driver,sinsp): Add euid to execve/execveat exit events #391
Conversation
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with Provide feedback via https://github.com/falcosecurity/community. /lifecycle stale |
/remove-lifecycle stale |
/milestone 0.11.0 |
Marking as wip since we need to handle modern_bpf as well |
0fd5fe5
to
0f9a83d
Compare
driver/bpf/fillers.h
Outdated
@@ -2855,17 +2855,12 @@ FILLER(execve_family_flags, true) | |||
|
|||
/* Parameter 26: exe_file mtime (last modification time, epoch value in nanoseconds) (type: PT_ABSTIME) */ | |||
time = _READ(inode->i_mtime); | |||
return bpf_val_to_ring_type(data, bpf_epoch_ns_from_time(time), PT_ABSTIME); | |||
ret = bpf_val_to_ring_type(data, bpf_epoch_ns_from_time(time), PT_ABSTIME); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sorry my fault is res
not ret
@incertum, @Andreagit97: I rebased the PR, care to take a look?
Looks like we still have <2.6.20 checks so I'd rather remove them all in a separate PR. I don't know if we actually run on <2.6.20 any more but I'd rather not break it on purpose in one place. |
Signed-off-by: Grzegorz Nosek <[email protected]>
We can't prevent losing setuid events completely and the uid is pretty important for some execve-related rules, so explicitly pass the uid in execve/at exit events Signed-off-by: Grzegorz Nosek <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Angelo Puglisi <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Andrea Terzolo <[email protected]>
/hold |
Hmm just noticed that the PT_ABSTIME patch that went in in #789 was slightly different so we still have a commit here:
Do we want this? @Andreagit97 @incertum (probably with a better commit message if so) |
@gnosek re above question we probably don't need this commit in this PR, ty. |
Thanks @incertum, dropped the patch. /unhold |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/approve
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: faa1e94d78b3537617e504bce3adc17083f54aa9
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/approve
/hold |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: Andreagit97, FedeDP, gnosek, hbrueckner, incertum The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/unhold |
We can't prevent losing setuid events completely and the uid
is pretty important for some execve-related rules, so explicitly
pass the uid in execve/at exit events
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
Any specific area of the project related to this PR?
/area driver-kmod
/area driver-bpf
/area libsinsp
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: