On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 07:49 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 05/17/2018 05:30 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: [...] > >>> auxiliary record either by being converted to a syscall auxiliary record > >>> by using current->audit_context rather than NULL when calling > >>> audit_log_start(), or creating a local audit_context and calling > >> ima_parse_rule() is invoked when setting a policy by writing it into > >> /sys/kernel/security/ima/policy. We unfortunately don't have the > >> current->audit_context in this case. > > Sure you do. What process writes to that file? That's the one we care > > about, unless it is somehow handed off to a queue and processed later in > > a different context. > > I just printk'd it again. current->audit_context is NULL in this case. The builtin policy rules are loaded at __init. Subsequently a custom policy can replace the builtin policy rules by writing to the securityfs file. Is the audit_context NULL in both cases? > >> 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 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. > 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. Mimi
