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

[Paul Moore]

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 8:03 AM Daniel Walsh <dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 <dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/22/19 9:49 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:38 AM Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> 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 <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 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