Re: [PATCH] audit: add containerid support for IMA-audit
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
>
>> 1806 would be in sync with INTEGRITY_RULE now for process related info.
>> If this looks good, I'll remove the dependency on your local context
>> creation and post the series.
>>
>> The justification for the change is that the INTEGRITY_RULE, as produced
>> by ima_parse_rule(), is broken.
> Post which series? The IMA namespacing patch set? This change should
> be upstreamed independently of IMA namespacing.
Without Richard's local context patch it may just be one or two patches.
Richard, if we separate the ima_parse_rules() audit messages, changing
the audit rule number now, without the call to audit_log_task_info(),
would adding the call later be breaking userspace?
Mimi