On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 8:03 AM Daniel Walsh <dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 5/28/19 8:43 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On 2019-05-28 19:00, Steve Grubb wrote: > >> On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 6:26:47 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote: > >>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 5:54 PM Daniel Walsh <dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> On 4/22/19 9:49 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>>> Mrunal Patel (maintainer of CRI-O) and I have reviewed the API, and > >>>> believe this is something we can work on in the container runtimes team > >>>> to implement the container auditing code in CRI-O and Podman. > >>> Thanks Dan. If I pulled this into a branch and built you some test > >>> kernels to play with, any idea how long it might take to get a proof > >>> of concept working on the cri-o side? > >> We'd need to merge user space patches and let them use that instead of the > >> raw interface. I'm not going to merge user space until we are pretty sure the > >> patch is going into the kernel. > > I have an f29 test rpm of the userspace bits if that helps for testing: > > http://people.redhat.com/~rbriggs/ghak90/git-1db7e21/ > > > > Here's what it contains (minus the last patch): > > https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-userspace/compare/master...rgbriggs:ghau40-containerid-filter.v7.0 > > > >> -Steve > >> > >>> FWIW, I've also reached out to some of the LXC folks I know to get > >>> their take on the API. I think if we can get two different container > >>> runtimes to give the API a thumbs-up then I think we are in good shape > >>> with respect to the userspace interface. > >>> > >>> I just finished looking over the last of the pending audit kernel > >>> patches that were queued waiting for the merge window to open so this > >>> is next on my list to look at. I plan to start doing that > >>> tonight/tomorrow, and as long as the changes between v5/v6 are not > >>> that big, it shouldn't take too long. > > - RGB > > > > -- > > Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems > > Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada > > IRC: rgb, SunRaycer > > Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635 > > Our current thoughts are to put the setting of the ID inside of conmon, > and then launching the OCI Runtime. In a perfect world this would > happen in the OCI Runtime, but we have no controls over different OCI > Runtimes. > > By putting it into conmon, then CRI-O and Podman will automatically get > the container id support. After we have this we have to plumb it back > up through the contianer engines to be able to easily report the link > between the Container UUID and The Kernel Container Audit ID. I'm glad you guys have a plan, that's encouraging, but sadly I have no idea about the level of complexity/difficulty involved in modifying the various container bits for a proof-of-concept? Are we talking a week or two? A month? More? -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
