Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 8/8] ima: Differentiate auditing policy rules from "audit" actions | From | Stefan Berger <> | Date | Wed, 30 May 2018 17:38:18 -0400 |
| |
On 05/30/2018 05:22 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Stefan Berger > <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> On 05/30/2018 08:49 AM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: >>> On 2018-05-24 16:11, Stefan Berger wrote: >>>> The AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE is used for auditing IMA policy rules and >>>> the IMA "audit" policy action. This patch defines >>>> AUDIT_INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE to reflect the IMA policy rules. >>>> >>>> With this change we now call integrity_audit_msg_common() to get >>>> common integrity auditing fields. This now produces the following >>>> record when parsing an IMA policy rule: >>>> >>>> type=UNKNOWN[1806] msg=audit(1527004216.690:311): action=dont_measure \ >>>> fsmagic=0x9fa0 pid=1613 uid=0 auid=0 ses=2 \ >>>> subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 \ >>>> op=policy_update cause=parse_rule comm="echo" exe="/usr/bin/echo" \ >>>> tty=tty2 res=1 >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>> --- >>>> include/uapi/linux/audit.h | 3 ++- >>>> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 5 +++-- >>>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/audit.h b/include/uapi/linux/audit.h >>>> index 4e61a9e05132..776e0abd35cf 100644 >>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/audit.h >>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/audit.h >>>> @@ -146,7 +146,8 @@ >>>> #define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_STATUS 1802 /* Integrity enable >>>> status */ >>>> #define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_HASH 1803 /* Integrity HASH type */ >>>> #define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_PCR 1804 /* PCR invalidation msgs */ >>>> -#define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE 1805 /* policy rule */ >>>> +#define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE 1805 /* IMA "audit" action policy >>>> msgs */ >>>> +#define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE 1806 /* IMA policy rules */ >>>> #define AUDIT_KERNEL 2000 /* Asynchronous audit >>>> record. NOT A REQUEST. */ >>>> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c >>>> b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c >>>> index 3aed25a7178a..a8ae47a386b4 100644 >>>> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c >>>> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c >>>> @@ -634,7 +634,7 @@ static int ima_parse_rule(char *rule, struct >>>> ima_rule_entry *entry) >>>> int result = 0; >>>> ab = integrity_audit_log_start(NULL, GFP_KERNEL, >>>> - AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE); >>>> + AUDIT_INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE); >>> Is it possible to connect this record to a syscall by replacing the >>> first parameter (NULL) by current->context? > We're likely going to need to "associate" this record (audit speak for > making the first parameter non-NULL) with others for the audit > container ID work. If you do it now, Richard's patches will likely > get a few lines smaller and that will surely make him a bit happier :)
Richard is also introducing a local context that we can then create and use instead of the NULL. Can we not use that then?
Steven seems to say: "We don't want to add syscall records to everything. That messes up schemas and existing code. The integrity events are 1 record in size and should stay that way. This saves disk space and improves readability."
> >> We would have to fix current->context in this case since it is NULL. We get >> to this location by root cat'ing a policy or writing a policy filename into >> /sys/kernel/security/ima/policy. > Perhaps I'm missing something, but current in this case should point > to the process which is writing to the policy file, yes? > Yes, but current->context is NULL for some reason.
| |