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

On Friday, May 18, 2018 12:34:24 PM EDT Mimi Zohar wrote: > 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

(No unnecessary untrusted string logging) and we have the required fields for searching: pid, uid, auid, tty, session, subj, comm, exe, & res. And the object is identifiable in the event.