Re: [PATCH 5/8] integrity: Add exe= and tty= before res= to integrity audits

On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 17:47 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:19:39 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote: > >> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Stefan Berger > >> > >> <stefanb(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com&gt; wrote: > >> > Use the new public audit functions to add the exe= and tty= > >> > parts to the integrity audit records. We place them before > >> > res=. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com&gt; > >> > Suggested-by: Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com&gt; > >> > --- > >> > > >> > security/integrity/integrity_audit.c | 2 ++ > >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c > >> > b/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c index db30763d5525..8d25d3c4dcca > >> > 100644 > >> > --- a/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c > >> > +++ b/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c > >> > @@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ void integrity_audit_msg(int audit_msgno, struct inode > >> > *inode,> > >> > audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, inode->i_sb->s_id); > >> > audit_log_format(ab, " ino=%lu", inode->i_ino); > >> > > >> > } > >> > > >> > + audit_log_d_path_exe(ab, current->mm); > >> > + audit_log_tty(ab, current); > >> > >> NACK > >> > >> Please add the new fields to the end of the audit record, thank you. > > > > Let's see what an example event looks like before NACK'ing this. Way back in > > 2013 the IMA events were good. I think this is repairing the event after some > > drift. > > Can you reference a specific commit, or point in time during 2013? > Looking at the git log quickly, if I go back to commit d726d8d719b6 > ("integrity: move integrity_audit_msg()") from March 18, 2013 (the > commit that created integrity_audit.c) the field ordering appears to > be the same as it today. > > My NACK still stands. There hasn't been any changes up to now.  This patch set refactors integrity_audit_msg(), creating integrity_audit_msg_common(), which will be called from both ima_audit_measurement() and ima_parse_rule().

Previously the audit record generated by ima_parse_rule() did not include this info.  The change in this patch will affect both the existing and the new INTEGRITY_AUDIT_POLICY_RULE audit records.