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

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