From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6673EC28CC2 for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 13:08:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48CA525952 for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 13:08:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727058AbfE3NIl (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 May 2019 09:08:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38660 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726382AbfE3NIk (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 May 2019 09:08:40 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FD0B30C120A; Thu, 30 May 2019 13:08:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from x2.localnet (ovpn-122-132.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.122.132]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437A15F9BA; Thu, 30 May 2019 13:08:25 +0000 (UTC) From: Steve Grubb To: Paul Moore Cc: Richard Guy Briggs , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Linux-Audit Mailing List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKML , netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, omosnace@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, simo@redhat.com, Eric Paris , Serge Hallyn , ebiederm@xmission.com, Neil Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V6 00/10] audit: implement container identifier Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 09:08:22 -0400 Message-ID: <1674888.6UpDe63hFX@x2> Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.46]); Thu, 30 May 2019 13:08:40 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 6:26:12 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 9:49 AM Paul Moore wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:38 AM Neil Horman 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. -Steve > If you want to go with > the working branch approach, I'll keep the branch fresh and (re)based > against audit/next and if we notice any problems you can just submit > fixes against that branch (depending on the issue they can be fixup > patches, or proper patches). My hope is that this will enable the > process to move quicker as we get near the finish line.