On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 10:10:36PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Thu, 2024-12-05 at 19:30 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2024 Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Like direct file execution (e.g. ./script.sh), indirect file execution > > > (e.g. sh script.sh) needs to be measured and appraised. Instantiate > > > the new security_bprm_creds_for_exec() hook to measure and verify the > > > indirect file's integrity. Unlike direct file execution, indirect file > > > execution is optionally enforced by the interpreter. > > > > > > Differentiate kernel and userspace enforced integrity audit messages. > > > > > > Co-developed-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Changelog v3: > > > - Mickael: add comment ima_bprm_creds_for_exec(), minor code cleanup, > > > add Co-developed-by tag. > > > > > > Changelog v2: > > > - Mickael: Use same audit messages with new audit message number > > > - Stefan Berger: Return boolean from is_bprm_creds_for_exec() > > > > > > include/uapi/linux/audit.h | 1 + > > > security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/audit.h b/include/uapi/linux/audit.h > > > index 75e21a135483..826337905466 100644 > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/audit.h > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/audit.h > > > @@ -161,6 +161,7 @@ > > > #define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE 1805 /* policy rule */ > > > #define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_EVM_XATTR 1806 /* New EVM-covered xattr */ > > > #define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE 1807 /* IMA policy rules */ > > > +#define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA_CHECK 1808 /* Userspace enforced data integrity */ > > > > I worry that "DATA_CHECK" is a bit vague, should we change the name so > > that there is some hint of either userspace enforcement or > > AT_EXECVE_CHECK? > > > > What about AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA_USER? > > The emphasis should be on userspace - AUDIT_INTEGRITY_USERSPACE. Looks good, I'll send a new patch series with this change, following https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241205160925.230119-9-mic@xxxxxxxxxxx/
