Re: [PATCH ghak90 V6 00/10] audit: implement container identifier

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 8:03 AM Daniel Walsh <dwalsh(a)redhat.com&gt; 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(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> On 4/22/19 9:49 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:38 AM Neil Horman <nhorman(a)tuxdriver.com&gt; >>> 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:... >> >>> -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(a)redhat.com&gt; >> 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?