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

[Paul Moore]

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 10:07 AM Daniel Walsh <dwalsh at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 5/29/19 9:17 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 8:03 AM Daniel Walsh <dwalsh at redhat.com> 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 at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/22/19 9:49 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:38 AM Neil Horman <nhorman at 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.  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 at 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
> >> 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?
> >
> If we had the kernel and the libaudit api, it would involve a small
> effort in conmon,  I would figure a few days for a POC.  Getting the
> hole wiring into CRI-O and Podman, would be a little more effort.

That's great.  Stay tuned ...

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com