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

[Stefan Berger]

On 05/18/2018 10:39 AM, 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(). 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

One other question is whether IMA's audit calls should all adhere to 
CONFIG_INTEGRITY_AUDIT. Most do but those two that currently use 
AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE do not. Should that be changed as well?

ÂÂÂ Stefan