Skip to content

Move RHV4 product to be el8 based#5352

Merged
matejak merged 13 commits intoComplianceAsCode:masterfrom
yuumasato:update_rhv4_to_rhel8
Apr 3, 2020
Merged

Move RHV4 product to be el8 based#5352
matejak merged 13 commits intoComplianceAsCode:masterfrom
yuumasato:update_rhv4_to_rhel8

Conversation

@yuumasato
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@yuumasato yuumasato commented Mar 27, 2020

Description:

  • Update content Hypervisor CPE product
  • Update profile with RHEL8 specific rules and their applicabilities
  • Document that rhv4 product applies to el8 based hosts
  • [ ] Update prodtype in other rules.

Rationale:

  • Content for el7 based hosts is provided in rhel7 product
  • Content for el8 based hosts is provided by rhv4 product

Related to: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/scap-security-guide@lists.fedorahosted.org/thread/CSNMJJWYPAUVBCQFCRIJHJ7PHOBE6SDB/

References

@yuumasato yuumasato force-pushed the update_rhv4_to_rhel8 branch 2 times, most recently from a45de90 to ee5ed7d Compare March 27, 2020 17:19
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Used by openshift-ci bot. label Mar 27, 2020
@yuumasato
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I'd appreciate feedback on contents of rhv4/README.md. Do you think something else should be there?

I have realized now that the rhel7/profiles/rhelh-stig.profile and rhv4/profiles/rhvh-stig.profile are very identical, and that there exists a rhel8/profiles/rhelh-stig.profile.

Maybe rhv4/profiles/rhvh-stig.profile needs to be updated to be based on rhel8 profile, and the same applies to rhvh-vpp.profile. Thoughts on this?

@yuumasato yuumasato changed the title Move RHV4 content to RHEL8 Move RHV4 product to RHEL8 Mar 27, 2020
@yuumasato yuumasato force-pushed the update_rhv4_to_rhel8 branch from ee5ed7d to f4a3de0 Compare March 27, 2020 17:31
@yuumasato
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

For easy of review, I've dropped ee5ed7d, and will propose it separately.

The commit just did bulk labeling, any rule that applied to rhel8 was made applicable rhv4.
And any rule that was only applicable to rhel7 was made sure not to apply to rhv4

@yuumasato yuumasato marked this pull request as ready for review March 27, 2020 17:35
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Used by openshift-ci bot. label Mar 27, 2020
@yuumasato yuumasato changed the title Move RHV4 product to RHEL8 Move RHV4 product to be el8 based Mar 27, 2020
Comment thread rhv4/README.md Outdated
@yuumasato yuumasato force-pushed the update_rhv4_to_rhel8 branch from f4a3de0 to c1de382 Compare March 30, 2020 13:12
@yuumasato
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

yuumasato commented Mar 30, 2020

So, I think it makes sense to update the profile to be based on RHEL8 versions.
So in 3845826 I update VPP profile to be aligned with RHEL8 OSPP profile, based on rhel8/profiles/rhelh-vpp.profile
And in 5b2d981 I update STIG profile to be aligned with RHEL8 STIG profile, based on rhel8/profiles/rhelh-stig.profile

Unfortunately this makes 0665267 mandatory, as it now enables a few rules needed by the profile.
Reviewing commit by commit will be easier than checking whole list of changed files.

@yuumasato
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

So in 3845826 I update VPP profile to be aligned with RHEL8 OSPP profile.
And in 5b2d981 I update STIG profile to be aligned with RHEL8 STIG profile.

@redhatrises, @shawndwells Would appreciate your feedback here

@openscap-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@yuumasato yuumasato added this to the 0.1.50 milestone Mar 31, 2020
@yuumasato yuumasato added the enhancement General enhancements to the project. label Mar 31, 2020
@redhatrises
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

A couple of thoughts:

  1. I noticed that any rule for RHEL8 is selected and enabled for rhv. Let's not do this as we are currently in the process with the RHV team to go through the NIST controls to evaluate applicability to RHV. Once controls are identified, we then add and enable them for RHV.

  2. Let's not make the OSPP and STIG rules the same. Keep them as is for now. We can open a draft PR for these changes separately. Reason being is that RHV is going through the NIAP process now and OSPP and VPP and STIG are not the same. And since we are evaluating all of NIST 800-53 and VPP, I am hestitant to make these type of changes to the profiles right now. For example, Gnome shouldn't be installed or configured at all on RHVH or RHVM.

@redhatrises
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Also don't create a separate README integrate the comments into the main README or in the docs.

@yuumasato yuumasato force-pushed the update_rhv4_to_rhel8 branch from 9ae8bf9 to d966a7f Compare April 1, 2020 12:11
@yuumasato
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

yuumasato commented Apr 1, 2020

Ok, dropped commits that migrate profiles and all rules to el8.
Now, the changes in rules are directly connected to migrating selected rules to el8.

Also don't create a separate README integrate the comments into the main README or in the docs.

I don't know where would be a good place for such information to be. I moved it to be in the User Guide.
@redhatrises If that is not a good place, suggest one, please.

@yuumasato yuumasato force-pushed the update_rhv4_to_rhel8 branch from d966a7f to 7cd2141 Compare April 1, 2020 17:38
Changes selection of FIPS related rules in RHV4 product to the
appropriate RHEL8 equivalent.
Also migrates rule prodtypes and platforms to rhel8.
And unselect rules made obsolete by them
Also migrates rule prodtypes and platforms to rhel8.
Rules that configure audispd plugin are failing due to missing config
files.
And migrate their prodtypes and platforms to rhel8.
As the node becomes rhel8 based, the gpg keys become the same as rhel8
keys.
As RHV4 moves to be rhel8 based, this doesn't apply anymore to rhv4.
These packages are not present in rhel8.
Make rhv4 product applicable to version 4.4 and newer.
@yuumasato yuumasato force-pushed the update_rhv4_to_rhel8 branch from 7cd2141 to 9f4652c Compare April 1, 2020 18:32
@yuumasato
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Conflicts resolved.

@JAORMX
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

JAORMX commented Apr 2, 2020

/test all

ocp4 e2e test flake

@JAORMX
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

JAORMX commented Apr 2, 2020

/test all

@yuumasato
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I have no idea how to interpret error in ci/prow/e2e-aws-moderate.
release "release-latest" failed: could not create watcher for pod: Get https://172.30.0.1:443/api/v1/namespaces/ci-op-tgyw9i7j/pods?fieldSelector=metadata.name%3Drelease-latest&watch=true: unexpected EOF

Is it a deal breaker?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@redhatrises redhatrises left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me. As this is draft content, all these changes are fine.

@redhatrises
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

/retest

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@yuumasato: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-aws-moderate 9f4652c link /test e2e-aws-moderate

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@matejak
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

matejak commented Apr 3, 2020

The PR has been approved, and those failing tests don't indicate that there is something wrong with it, so I am merging it.

@matejak matejak merged commit 030a4a5 into ComplianceAsCode:master Apr 3, 2020
@yuumasato yuumasato deleted the update_rhv4_to_rhel8 branch April 3, 2020 11:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement General enhancements to the project.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants