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
