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. -Steve
