Re: [PATCH] audit: add containerid support for IMA-audit

On 05/21/2018 01:21 PM, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Friday, May 18, 2018 12:34:24 PM EDT Mimi Zohar wrote: >> On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 11:56 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: >>> On 2018-05-18 10:39, 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? >>> >>> No, go ahead and make the change now. I'm expecting that the >>> containerid record will just be another auxiliary record and should not >>> affect you folks. >> >> To summarize, we need to disambiguate the 1805, as both >> ima_parse_rule() and ima_audit_measurement() are using the same number >> with different formats. The main usage of 1805 that we are aware of >> is ima_audit_measurement(). Yet the "type=" name for >> ima_audit_measurement() should be INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT, not >> INTEGRITY_RULE. >> >> option 1: breaks both uses >> 1805 - INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT - ima_audit_measurement() >> 1806 - INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE - ima_parse_rule() >> >> option 2: breaks the most common usage >> 1805 - INTEGRITY_RULE - ima_parse_rule() >> 1806 - INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT - ima_audit_measurement() >> >> option 3: leaves the most common usage with the wrong name, and breaks >> the other less common usage >> 1805 - INTEGRITY_RULE - ima_audit_measurement() >> 1806 - INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE - ima_parse_rule() >> >> So option 3 is the best option? >> > From a user space perspective, I don't care as long the event is well > formed Are you saying this because of the tools you referred to that require proper ordering and all fields need to be available?

> (No unnecessary untrusted string logging) and we have the required fields > for searching: pid, uid, auid, tty, session, subj, comm, exe, & res. And > the object is identifiable in the event. There's at least one documented user that showed the existing format... https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2016/11/extending_linux_exec.h tml