lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 06:28:21 -0400
From:   Neil Horman <>
To:     Paul Moore <>
Cc:     Richard Guy Briggs <>,,,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <>,, LKML <>,,,,,,, Eric Paris <>,
        Serge Hallyn <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 V6 00/10] audit: implement container identifier

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

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

> -- 
> paul moore

Powered by blists - more mailing lists