AppArmor Recorder: Add mkdir hook

[mhils]

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR makes sure we properly record mkdir hooks.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

None

Does this PR have test?

Yes.

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Improve AppArmor BPF recorder to capture mkdir syscalls.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @mhils. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

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-sigs/prow repository.

[saschagrunert]

/ok-to-test

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 41.38%. Comparing base (11d77f4) to head (dfd791d).
Report is 539 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2608      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   45.50%   41.38%   -4.12%     
==========================================
  Files          79      109      +30     
  Lines        7782    18239   +10457     
==========================================
+ Hits         3541     7549    +4008     
- Misses       4099    10191    +6092     
- Partials      142      499     +357     

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ccojocar, mhils

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [ccojocar]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[ccojocar]

/lgtm

[ccojocar]

Did you use the same clang version like the CI to generate the eBPF bytecode? It looks like out of sync.

[ccojocar]

/lgtm

[ccojocar]

/lgtm

[mhils]

It looks like bpf_d_path is not universally alllowlisted for lsm/path_mkdir. Closing this in favor of #2611, which addresses this already for other syscalls.