On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:38 AM Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 11:39:07PM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > Implement kernel audit container identifier. > > I'm sorry, I've lost track of this, where have we landed on it? Are we good for > inclusion? I haven't finished going through this latest revision, but unless Richard made any significant changes outside of the feedback from the v5 patchset I'm guessing we are "close". Based on discussions Richard and I had some time ago, I have always envisioned the plan as being get the kernel patchset, tests, docs ready (which Richard has been doing) and then run the actual implemented API by the userland container folks, e.g. cri-o/lxc/etc., to make sure the actual implementation is sane from their perspective. They've already seen the design, so I'm not expecting any real surprises here, but sometimes opinions change when they have actual code in front of them to play with and review. Beyond that, while the cri-o/lxc/etc. folks are looking it over, whatever additional testing we can do would be a big win. I'm thinking I'll pull it into a separate branch in the audit tree (audit/working-container ?) and include that in my secnext kernels that I build/test on a regular basis; this is also a handy way to keep it based against the current audit/next branch. If any changes are needed Richard can either chose to base those changes on audit/next or the separate audit container ID branch; that's up to him. I've done this with other big changes in other trees, e.g. SELinux, and it has worked well to get some extra testing in and keep the patchset "merge ready" while others outside the subsystem look things over. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
