On 5/29/19 9:17 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > 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? > If we had the kernel and the libaudit api, it would involve a small effort in conmon, I would figure a few days for a POC. Getting the hole wiring into CRI-O and Podman, would be a little more effort.
