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=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, 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 310C6C28CC2 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 13:17:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DDB21734 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 13:17:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="VaEW0P5h" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727193AbfE2NRe (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2019 09:17:34 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-f68.google.com ([209.85.167.68]:46334 "EHLO mail-lf1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727086AbfE2NRe (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2019 09:17:34 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f68.google.com with SMTP id l26so2008766lfh.13 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 06:17:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=n6WwA4zk/EsZWyLmMz2aZvbV29nZ+j/GoKwFRPk91Ok=; b=VaEW0P5hpaTjmlBZCJfOuDnnKRyM32QMYxezcsjOyVnoVYhW27UH3bA0yPB14uCnm8 d6tlPPbSEli4WyLUwUrT6Af2uF+lx7bxGKGmoQpy6nygRXB1RAlqDw49V/EC/UefyLAS V5AOjddkiAjg9f+0GvpxSvIoihKYmZdd6fHF0dTcE1wwwdW5tr2ya6gCdVnx9qV17H6j M4h7mt8SnLrfP/j7Xh+C9CJLUPWnxvm33kheunqaIOSjUWjKBJIKWfqR6xBUTSqUbF++ F7UHQ3L5/JoQGwtak6oBzR1ZxY7vIk7D21+uK+44fUX7ULw4Xl5awm+avPU5QlsSwapC wSSA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=n6WwA4zk/EsZWyLmMz2aZvbV29nZ+j/GoKwFRPk91Ok=; b=tECxbelz4FbN8BElJepMm4UvtL0gXBXZiBX28/Uf7zFzwi7Ye4xwgawnT+XsDraJNA Kyz5YSCmZPgaE8HSy7osfyE03j5qnOmNK+WuvghFkDYldQUDp2/JIEOK8daBc94ybg06 uQ7/Coyrulg1ladBzvvZ3yb9k1jlW177kh5lr6LrMloXWDCuDW3pbnRMoEoaaO5zXwaR blQ3ZDE2svjMj+CYhIuv1h8TTlkMYso8iNHLMQ0nY7WYtw1wNtDf9usT8XQSG8zTMQfA SHL49gmijw9B2FxmDSnV8JqTxgLtzjqjrqhuH5wZk8tBC+mUAoNV6c7lcJNEagPfuD4v TlTw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWOR5PewHQaZK6zzghSnK424WTyFnMaPAA9grf2h+Z77VeAZHg6 QhVD4jOjq6zoblJljiCgjqB4ICkwO9BidbduMRrM X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxwNJ2hrphH/eQEWYthKv8zwdiStt+rRGVE9lGQEZKevqFhuFcT1lynINU+dx1udh6C8bZFZeqDAxzvYCLlNC0= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4111:: with SMTP id b17mr7443993lfi.31.1559135851731; Wed, 29 May 2019 06:17:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <509ea6b0-1ac8-b809-98c2-37c34dd98ca3@redhat.com> <3299293.RYyUlNkVNy@x2> <20190529004352.vvicec7nnk6pvkwt@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <31804653-7518-1a9c-83af-f6ce6a6ce408@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <31804653-7518-1a9c-83af-f6ce6a6ce408@redhat.com> From: Paul Moore Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 09:17:20 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V6 00/10] audit: implement container identifier To: Dan Walsh Cc: Richard Guy Briggs , Steve Grubb , 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, omosnace@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, simo@redhat.com, Eric Paris , Serge Hallyn , ebiederm@xmission.com, Mrunal Patel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 8:03 AM Daniel Walsh wrote: > > On 5/28/19 8:43 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > 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 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. 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 > > 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 > > Our current thoughts are to put the setting of the ID inside of conmon, > and then launching the OCI Runtime. In a perfect world this would > happen in the OCI Runtime, but we have no controls over different OCI > Runtimes. > > By putting it into conmon, then CRI-O and Podman will automatically get > the container id support. After we have this we have to plumb it back > up through the contianer engines to be able to easily report the link > between the Container UUID and The Kernel Container Audit ID. I'm glad you guys have a plan, that's encouraging, but sadly I have no idea about the level of complexity/difficulty involved in modifying the various container bits for a proof-of-concept? Are we talking a week or two? A month? More? -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com