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