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

On 05/29/2018 05:30 PM, Steve Grubb wrote: > Hello, > > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 4:11:05 PM EDT 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 > > Since this is a new event, do you mind moving the tty field to be between > auid= and ses= ? That is the more natural place for it. 6/8 refactors the code so that the integrity audit records produced by IMA follow one format in terms of ordering of the fields, with fields like inode optional, though, and AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE in the end being the only one with a different format. Do we really want to change that order just for 1806? 5/8 now produces the following: type=INTEGRITY_PCR msg=audit(1527685075.941:502): pid=2431 \ uid=0 auid=1000 ses=5 \ subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 \ op=invalid_pcr cause=open_writers comm="grep" \ name="/var/log/audit/audit.log" dev="dm-0" ino=1962494 \ exe="/usr/bin/grep" tty=pts0 res=1 Comparing the two: 1806: action, fsmagic, pid, uid, auid, ses, subj, op, cause, comm, exe, tty, res INTEGRITY_PCR: pid, uid, auid, ses, subj, op, cause, comm, name, dev, ino, exe, tty, res

> Also, it might be more natural for the op= and cause= fields to be before > the pid= portion. This doesn't matter as much to me because those are > not searchable fields and they are skipped right over. But moving the > tty field is the main comment from me. With the refactoring in 6/8 we at least have consistency among the INTEGRITY_* records, with the only exception being AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE that has its own format: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/integrity/ima/ima_a pi.c#L324 The other ones currently all format using integrity_audit_msg(). > Thanks, > -Steve > >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger<stefanb(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- >> >> 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); >> >> entry->uid = INVALID_UID; >> entry->fowner = INVALID_UID; >> >> @@ -926,7 +926,8 @@ static int ima_parse_rule(char *rule, struct >> ima_rule_entry *entry) temp_ima_appraise |= IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE; >> >> else if (entry->func == POLICY_CHECK) >> >> temp_ima_appraise |= IMA_APPRAISE_POLICY; >> >> - audit_log_format(ab, "res=%d", !result); >> + integrity_audit_msg_common(ab, NULL, NULL, >> + "policy_update", "parse_rule", result); >> >> audit_log_end(ab); >> return result; >> >> }