Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 18:25:10 -0400
From:   Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
To:     Daniel Walsh <dwalsh@redhat.com>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.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,
        Mrunal Patel <mpatel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V6 00/10] audit: implement container identifier
Message-ID: <20190528222510.i3emki5ctss7acth@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
References: <cover.1554732921.git.rgb@redhat.com>
 <20190422113810.GA27747@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
 <CAHC9VhQYPF2ma_W+hySbQtfTztf=K1LTFnxnyVK0y9VYxj-K=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <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
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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 <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.
> >
> 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 <rgb@redhat.com>
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