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

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