Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] audit: add containerid support for IMA-audit | From | Stefan Berger <> | Date | Fri, 18 May 2018 10:52:34 -0400 |
| |
On 05/18/2018 10:39 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 09:54 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: >> On 05/18/2018 08:53 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > [..] > >>>>>> If so, which ones? We could probably refactor the current >>>>>> integrity_audit_message() and have ima_parse_rule() call into it to get >>>>>> those fields as well. I suppose adding new fields to it wouldn't be >>>>>> considered breaking user space? >>>>> Changing the order of existing fields or inserting fields could break >>>>> stuff and is strongly discouraged without a good reason, but appending >>>>> fields is usually the right way to add information. >>>>> >>>>> There are exceptions, and in this case, I'd pick the "more standard" of >>>>> the formats for AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE (ima_audit_measurement?) and stick >>>>> with that, abandoning the other format, renaming the less standard >>>>> version of the record (ima_parse_rule?) and perhpas adopting that >>>>> abandonned format for the new record type while using >>>>> current->audit_context. >>> This sounds right, other than "type=INTEGRITY_RULE" (1805) for >>> ima_audit_measurement(). Could we rename type=1805 to be >> So do we want to change both? I thought that what >> ima_audit_measurement() produces looks ok but may not have a good name >> for the 'type'. Now in this case I would not want to 'break user space'. >> The only change I was going to make was to what ima_parse_rule() produces. > The only change for now is separating the IMA policy rules from the > IMA-audit messages. > > Richard, when the containerid is appended to the IMA-audit messages, > would we make the audit type name change then? > >>> INTEGRITY_AUDIT or INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT? The new type=1806 audit >>> message could be named INTEGRITY_RULE or, if that would be confusing, >>> INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE. >> For 1806, as we would use it in ima_parse_rule(), we could change that >> in your patch to INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE. IMA_POLICY_RULE may be better >> for IMA to produce but that's inconsistent then. > Ok
One other question is whether IMA's audit calls should all adhere to CONFIG_INTEGRITY_AUDIT. Most do but those two that currently use AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE do not. Should that be changed as well?
Stefan
| |