On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 18:18 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 20:21 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Stefan Berger > >> <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > >> > > >> > Since we defined a new message type we can now also pass the > >> > audit_context and get an associated SYSCALL record. This now produces > >> > the following records when parsing IMA policy's rules: > >> > >> Aaand now I see you included the current->audit_context pointer I > >> mentioned in my comments for 3/4 ;) > >> > >> So basically this should be fine, although I should point out that you > >> do not need to define a new message type to associate records > >> together. The fact that we don't associate all connected records is > >> basically a bug. > >> > >> Anyway, patches 3/4 and 4/4 look good to me. Considering this is > >> likely going in during the *next* merge window, I would ask that you > >> convert from "current->audit_context" to "audit_context()" as soon as > >> this merge window closes. > >> > >> Thanks! > > > > Thanks, Paul. I'd like to start queueing patches for the next open > > window now, instead of scrambling later. Can I add your Ack now, and > > remember to make this change when rebasing? > > Sure, go ahead and add my ACK to both 3/4 and 4/4 as long as you > double pinky swear you'll do the audit_context() fix-up during the > merge :) > > Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sure, it will be really hard to miss. The next-integrity-queued branch has: Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> *** Remember replace current->audit_context with call to audit_context() *** Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
