On 2018-05-18 12:34, 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? Yes, I think so, but option 2 I would be willing to consider. I'd like to get Paul and Steve's opinions on this. > Mimi - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada IRC: rgb, SunRaycer Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635
