On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 9:54:00 AM EDT Stefan Berger wrote: > On 05/29/2018 05:30 PM, Steve Grubb wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 4:11:05 PM EDT Stefan Berger wrote: > >> The AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE is used for auditing IMA policy rules and > >> the IMA "audit" policy action. This patch defines > >> AUDIT_INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE to reflect the IMA policy rules. > >> > >> With this change we now call integrity_audit_msg_common() to get > >> common integrity auditing fields. This now produces the following > >> record when parsing an IMA policy rule: > >> > >> type=UNKNOWN[1806] msg=audit(1527004216.690:311): action=dont_measure \ > >> > >> fsmagic=0x9fa0 pid=1613 uid=0 auid=0 ses=2 \ > >> subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 \ > >> op=policy_update cause=parse_rule comm="echo" exe="/usr/bin/echo" \ > >> tty=tty2 res=1 > > > > Since this is a new event, do you mind moving the tty field to be between > > auid= and ses= ? That is the more natural place for it. > > 6/8 refactors the code so that the integrity audit records produced by > IMA follow one format in terms of ordering of the fields, with fields > like inode optional, though, and AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE in the end being > the only one with a different format. Do we really want to change that > order just for 1806? > > 5/8 now produces the following: > > type=INTEGRITY_PCR msg=audit(1527685075.941:502): pid=2431 \ > uid=0 auid=1000 ses=5 \ > subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 \ > op=invalid_pcr cause=open_writers comm="grep" \ > name="/var/log/audit/audit.log" dev="dm-0" ino=1962494 \ > exe="/usr/bin/grep" tty=pts0 res=1 > > Comparing the two: > > 1806: action, fsmagic, pid, uid, auid, ses, subj, op, cause, > comm, exe, tty, res > INTEGRITY_PCR: pid, uid, auid, ses, subj, op, cause, > comm, name, dev, ino, exe, tty, res OK. I guess go with it as is. It passes testing. -Steve > > Also, it might be more natural for the op= and cause= fields to be before > > the pid= portion. This doesn't matter as much to me because those are > > not searchable fields and they are skipped right over. But moving the > > tty field is the main comment from me. > > With the refactoring in 6/8 we at least have consistency among the > INTEGRITY_* records, with the only exception being AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE > that has its own format: > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/integrity/ima/ima_a > pi.c#L324 > > The other ones currently all format using integrity_audit_msg(). > > > Thanks, > > -Steve > > > >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger<stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> > >> include/uapi/linux/audit.h | 3 ++- > >> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 5 +++-- > >> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/audit.h b/include/uapi/linux/audit.h > >> index 4e61a9e05132..776e0abd35cf 100644 > >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/audit.h > >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/audit.h > >> @@ -146,7 +146,8 @@ > >> > >> #define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_STATUS 1802 /* Integrity enable status */ > >> #define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_HASH 1803 /* Integrity HASH type */ > >> #define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_PCR 1804 /* PCR invalidation msgs */ > >> > >> -#define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE 1805 /* policy rule */ > >> +#define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE 1805 /* IMA "audit" action policy msgs > >> */ +#define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE 1806 /* IMA policy rules */ > >> > >> #define AUDIT_KERNEL 2000 /* Asynchronous audit record. NOT A > > > > REQUEST. */ > > > >> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > >> b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c index 3aed25a7178a..a8ae47a386b4 > >> 100644 > >> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > >> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c > >> @@ -634,7 +634,7 @@ static int ima_parse_rule(char *rule, struct > >> ima_rule_entry *entry) int result = 0; > >> > >> ab = integrity_audit_log_start(NULL, GFP_KERNEL, > >> > >> - AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE); > >> + AUDIT_INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE); > >> > >> entry->uid = INVALID_UID; > >> entry->fowner = INVALID_UID; > >> > >> @@ -926,7 +926,8 @@ static int ima_parse_rule(char *rule, struct > >> ima_rule_entry *entry) temp_ima_appraise |= IMA_APPRAISE_FIRMWARE; > >> > >> else if (entry->func == POLICY_CHECK) > >> > >> temp_ima_appraise |= IMA_APPRAISE_POLICY; > >> > >> - audit_log_format(ab, "res=%d", !result); > >> + integrity_audit_msg_common(ab, NULL, NULL, > >> + "policy_update", "parse_rule", result); > >> > >> audit_log_end(ab); > >> return result; > >> > >> }
