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

Richard Guy Briggs
2019-05-29T00:44:11Z

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@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On 4/22/19 9:49 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:38 AM Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> 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@redhat.com>
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