fix apparmor profile for spod

[mhils]

What type of PR is this?

/kind bug

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR fixes the apparmor profile for the bpf recorder itself so that recording works again after #2646. The template injection hack is not meant to be a permanent solution, but a temporary stopgap to make things work without reverts.

Most of the missing permissions were found looking at journalctl, but for / AppArmor did not emit any DENIED messages despite actually denying permissions. This is a bit worrying in general, but what to do.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

None

Does this PR have test?

N/A

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

NONE

[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.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 40.91%. Comparing base (11d77f4) to head (7099590).
Report is 667 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2696      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   45.50%   40.91%   -4.59%     
==========================================
  Files          79      109      +30     
  Lines        7782    18724   +10942     
==========================================
+ Hits         3541     7661    +4120     
- Misses       4099    10546    +6447     
- Partials      142      517     +375     

[saschagrunert]

/ok-to-test

[ccojocar]

The ptrace stuff is requried in addition to #2691. Did we find out what introduced the ptrace thingy? I think was not required before.

[ccojocar]

@mhils this one needs a rebase.

[mhils]

Did we find out what introduced the ptrace thingy? I think was not required before.

Based on https://gitlab.com/apparmor/apparmor/-/wikis/TechnicalDoc_Proc_and_ptrace#list-of-proc-files-that-may-cause-ptrace-trace-requests, AppArmor wants ptrace permissions if /proc/<pid>/ns/ is read. So the ptrace permission is not only about a ptrace() syscall, but also for certain file access.

/proc/1/ns is read by go-apparmor here: https://github.com/pjbgf/go-apparmor/blob/1375e5e7aa892edd0ad2a1cebef2297ac2e3872d/pkg/hostop/mount_linux.go#L86. So my explanation for why this did not show up before is that the previous cluster where we recorded the profile did not have apparmor recording enabled.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

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

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,saschagrunert]

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