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

On 05/18/2018 10:39 AM, 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? > > > > 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 One other question is whether IMA's audit calls should all adhere to CONFIG_INTEGRITY_AUDIT.

Most do but those two that currently use AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE do not. Should that be changed as well?

    Stefan