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
