On 2019-05-30 09:35, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 9:08 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 6:26:12 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote: > > > 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? > > > > Personally, I'd like to see this on a branch so that it's easier to build a > > kernel locally for testing. > > FWIW, if Richard does prefer for me to pull it into a working branch I > plan to include it in my secnext builds both to make it easier to test > regularly and to make the changes available to people who don't want > to build their own kernel. Sure, let's do a working branch. I'll answer the issues in respective threads... > * http://www.paul-moore.com/blog/d/2019/04/kernel_secnext_repo.html > > -- > paul moore > www.paul-moore.com > > -- > Linux-audit mailing list > Linux-audit@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit - 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
