On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 9:49 AM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. I just sent my feedback on the v6 patchset, and it's small: basically three patches with "one-liner" changes needed. Richard, it's your call on how you want to proceed from here. You can post a v7 incorporating the feedback, or since the tweaks are so minor, you can post fixup patches; the former being more comprehensive, the later being quicker to review and digest. Regardless of that, while we are waiting on a prototype from the container folks, I think it would be good to pull this into a working branch in the audit repo (as mentioned above), unless you would prefer to keep it as a patchset on the mailing list? If you want to go with the working branch approach, I'll keep the branch fresh and (re)based against audit/next and if we notice any problems you can just submit fixes against that branch (depending on the issue they can be fixup patches, or proper patches). My hope is that this will enable the process to move quicker as we get near the finish line. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
