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=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT 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 354F9C04AB6 for ; Tue, 28 May 2019 22:25:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F3820B1F for ; Tue, 28 May 2019 22:25:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727295AbfE1WZc (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2019 18:25:32 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43140 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726481AbfE1WZc (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2019 18:25:32 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E4C730C1217; Tue, 28 May 2019 22:25:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from madcap2.tricolour.ca (ovpn-112-16.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.112.16]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B19415D9CC; Tue, 28 May 2019 22:25:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 18:25:10 -0400 From: Richard Guy Briggs To: Daniel Walsh Cc: Paul Moore , Neil Horman , 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, sgrubb@redhat.com, omosnace@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, simo@redhat.com, Eric Paris , Serge Hallyn , ebiederm@xmission.com, Mrunal Patel Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V6 00/10] audit: implement container identifier Message-ID: <20190528222510.i3emki5ctss7acth@madcap2.tricolour.ca> References: <20190422113810.GA27747@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <509ea6b0-1ac8-b809-98c2-37c34dd98ca3@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <509ea6b0-1ac8-b809-98c2-37c34dd98ca3@redhat.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.46]); Tue, 28 May 2019 22:25:32 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On 2019-05-28 17:53, Daniel Walsh wrote: > On 4/22/19 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. > > > 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, Mrunal! - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs 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