Re: [PATCH 8/8] ima: Differentiate auditing policy rules from "audit" actions

On 05/30/2018 05:22 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Stefan Berger > <stefanb(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com&gt; 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(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com&gt; > > > > --- > > > > 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.