On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 10:07 AM Daniel Walsh <dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. That's great. Stay tuned ... -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
