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

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