Re: [PATCH] audit: add containerid support for IMA-audit

[Mimi Zohar]

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(). ÂCould 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?

> 
> > INTEGRITY_AUDIT or INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT? ÂThe new type=1806 audit
> > message could be named INTEGRITY_RULE or, if that would be confusing,
> > INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE.
> 
> For 1806, as we would use it in ima_parse_rule(), we could change that 
> in your patch to INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE. IMA_POLICY_RULE may be better 
> for IMA to produce but that's inconsistent then.

Ok

> 
> >
> >> 1806 would be in sync with INTEGRITY_RULE now for process related info.
> >> If this looks good, I'll remove the dependency on your local context
> >> creation and post the series.
> >>
> >> The justification for the change is that the INTEGRITY_RULE, as produced
> >> by ima_parse_rule(), is broken.
> > Post which series? ÂThe IMA namespacing patch set? ÂThis change should
> > be upstreamed independently of IMA namespacing.
> 
> Without Richard's local context patch it may just be one or two patches.

Richard, if we separate the ima_parse_rules() audit messages, changing
the audit rule number now, without the call to audit_log_task_info(),
would adding the call later be breaking userspace?

Mimi