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

From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>,
	containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	sgrubb@redhat.com, omosnace@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
	simo@redhat.com, Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>,
	ebiederm@xmission.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V6 00/10] audit: implement container identifier
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 06:28:21 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190423102821.GA30923@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhQYPF2ma_W+hySbQtfTztf=K1LTFnxnyVK0y9VYxj-K=w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 09:49:05AM -0400, 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.
> 

That all sounds good, thank you Paul.  I knew you and Richard were working on
it, but I somehow managed to loose track of exactly where we left this.  

Much Appreciated
Neil

> -- 
> paul moore
> www.paul-moore.com
> 