Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Add native AppArmor policy support in KubeArmorPolicy #150

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 14, 2021

Conversation

oneiro-naut
Copy link
Contributor

This commit makes it possible for us to embed native apparmor rules in the YAML policy. It
adds a new field in the spec called apparmor of type string.

Fixes: #54

@@ -296,6 +296,7 @@ type KubeArmorPolicySpec struct {
// INSERT ADDITIONAL SPEC FIELDS - desired state of cluster
// Important: Run "make" to regenerate code after modifying this file

Apparmor string `json:"apparmor,omitempty"`
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please add Apparmor after Resource.

@@ -384,6 +384,7 @@ type SecuritySpec struct {
Tags []string `json:"tags,omitempty"`
Message string `json:"message,omitempty"`

Apparmor string `json:"apparmor,omitempty"`
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Add Apparmor after Resource.

@nam-jaehyun
Copy link
Collaborator

nam-jaehyun commented Jun 13, 2021

Need testing outcomes including:

  • a test YAML file with a native AppArmor profile
  • the screenshots for the overall process
    • the YAML application,
    • the naive AppArmor enforcement,
    • and some results related to the AppArmor profile.
  • any consideration like
    • what happens when a general policy and a policy with a naive profile are deployed together for the same labels?

@oneiro-naut
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @nam-jaehyun. I have changed my commit as per your suggestions. For the tests I have tested these on few YAML files I created locally but I did not add them in this commit. I will let you know as soon as I finish with the testing outcomes with screenshots and overall steps.

@nam-jaehyun
Copy link
Collaborator

@oneiro-naut Good! Please let me know when you're done.

@oneiro-naut
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @nam-jaehyun . I have shared with you a document containing screenshots and some observations via email.

This commit makes it possible for us to embed native apparmor rules in the YAML policy.
It adds a new field in the spec called apparmor of type string.

Fixes: kubearmor#54

Signed-off-by: Ayush Dwivedi <ayush.dwivedi@accuknox.com>
@oneiro-naut
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @nam-jaehyun . I have made the changes with adding empty newlines.

@nam-jaehyun nam-jaehyun merged commit cc3b39c into kubearmor:master Jun 14, 2021
@nam-jaehyun
Copy link
Collaborator

If you're available, it would be good for you to pick #86.

@oneiro-naut oneiro-naut deleted the native-apparmor branch June 14, 2021 07:43
@oneiro-naut
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nam-jaehyun I think @daemon1024 is already looking into this issue.

@nam-jaehyun
Copy link
Collaborator

@oneiro-naut It looks like..
Then, please create a new issue for the policy match with a native AppArmor profile and work on the issue.

@oneiro-naut
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @nam-jaehyun . I have added the issue can you please review if the statement is stated correctly? Also please assign me to the same.

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Apply native apparmor (or any LSM) policy using KubeArmor
2 participants