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.
