On 2020-06-29 17:30:03, Mimi Zohar wrote: > [Cc'ing the audit mailing list] > > On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 10:30 -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote: > > > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h > > index ff2bf57ff0c7..5d62ee8319f4 100644 > > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h > > @@ -419,24 +419,24 @@ static inline void ima_free_modsig(struct modsig *modsig) > > /* LSM based policy rules require audit */ > > #ifdef CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES > > > > -#define security_filter_rule_init security_audit_rule_init > > -#define security_filter_rule_free security_audit_rule_free > > -#define security_filter_rule_match security_audit_rule_match > > +#define ima_audit_rule_init security_audit_rule_init > > +#define ima_audit_rule_free security_audit_rule_free > > +#define ima_audit_rule_match security_audit_rule_match > > Instead of defining an entirely new method of identifying files, IMA > piggybacks on top of the existing audit rule syntax.  IMA policy rules > "filter" based on this information. > > IMA already audits security/integrity related events.  Using the word > "audit" here will make things even more confusing than they currently > are.  Renaming these functions as ima_audit_rule_XXX provides no > benefit.  At that point, IMA might as well call the > security_audit_rule prefixed function names directly.  As a quick fix, > rename them as "ima_filter_rule". > > The correct solution would probably be to rename these prefixed > "security_audit_rule" functions as "security_filter_rule", so that > both the audit subsystem and IMA could use them. There doesn't seem to be any interest, from the audit side, in re-using these. I don't quite understand why they would want to use them since they're just simple wrappers around the security_audit_rule_*() functions.

I'll go the "quick fix" route of renaming them as ima_filter_rule_*().