Skip to content

Cherry-pick #10429 to 6.x: Add rpm packaging rebase#10490

Closed
tsg wants to merge 2 commits intoelastic:6.7from
tsg:backport_10429_6.x
Closed

Cherry-pick #10429 to 6.x: Add rpm packaging rebase#10490
tsg wants to merge 2 commits intoelastic:6.7from
tsg:backport_10429_6.x

Conversation

@tsg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@tsg tsg commented Feb 1, 2019

Cherry-pick of PR #10429 to 6.x branch. Original message:

This takes over the code from #9092 and rebases it on top of master.

This adds support for programmatically reading the list of RPM packages. The previous version was using exec (called the rpm binary), but we'd like to keep Auditbeat exec free, because execs are currently blocked by seccomp, as a security feature.

Using the model from Journalbeat, the new code uses dlopen get the relevant C functions and calls them using CGo. This means that librpm is not a hard dependency, but only for when this functionality is needed.

* Add RPM packages support to the package dataset

(cherry picked from commit 99d09ea)
@tsg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

tsg commented Feb 3, 2019

This looks green, just the filebeat tests didn't run on Jennkins for some reason. @cwurm can you give it a quick review.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@cwurm cwurm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@urso
Copy link
Copy Markdown

urso commented Feb 6, 2019

Please backport to 6.7 branch. 6.x will be removed.

@urso urso changed the base branch from 6.x to 6.7 February 6, 2019 13:42
@urso
Copy link
Copy Markdown

urso commented Feb 6, 2019

I changed base to 6.7

@tsg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

tsg commented Feb 6, 2019

jenkins, test this

@tsg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

tsg commented Feb 6, 2019

I reopened this as #10623, because weird things happened after changing the base, and I want to make sure it's clean.

@tsg tsg closed this Feb 6, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants