Re: [PATCH 5/8] integrity: Add exe= and tty= before res= to integrity audits

[Paul Moore]

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 18:58 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 17:47 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:19:39 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote:
>> > >> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Stefan Berger
>> > >>
>> > >> <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >> > Use the new public audit functions to add the exe= and tty=
>> > >> > parts to the integrity audit records. We place them before
>> > >> > res=.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> > Suggested-by: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> > ---
>> > >> >
>> > >> >  security/integrity/integrity_audit.c | 2 ++
>> > >> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> > >> >
>> > >> > diff --git a/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c
>> > >> > b/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c index db30763d5525..8d25d3c4dcca
>> > >> > 100644
>> > >> > --- a/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c
>> > >> > +++ b/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c
>> > >> > @@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ void integrity_audit_msg(int audit_msgno, struct inode
>> > >> > *inode,>
>> > >> >                 audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, inode->i_sb->s_id);
>> > >> >                 audit_log_format(ab, " ino=%lu", inode->i_ino);
>> > >> >
>> > >> >         }
>> > >> >
>> > >> > +       audit_log_d_path_exe(ab, current->mm);
>> > >> > +       audit_log_tty(ab, current);
>> > >>
>> > >> NACK
>> > >>
>> > >> Please add the new fields to the end of the audit record, thank you.
>> > >
>> > > Let's see what an example event looks like before NACK'ing this. Way back in
>> > > 2013 the IMA events were good. I think this is repairing the event after some
>> > > drift.
>> >
>> > Can you reference a specific commit, or point in time during 2013?
>> > Looking at the git log quickly, if I go back to commit d726d8d719b6
>> > ("integrity: move integrity_audit_msg()") from March 18, 2013 (the
>> > commit that created integrity_audit.c) the field ordering appears to
>> > be the same as it today.
>> >
>> > My NACK still stands.
>>
>> There hasn't been any changes up to now.  This patch set refactors
>> integrity_audit_msg(), creating integrity_audit_msg_common(), which
>> will be called from both ima_audit_measurement() and
>> ima_parse_rule().
>
> That should have been "from integrity_audit_msg() and
> ima_parse_rule()", not ima_audit_measurement().

No worries, the important part is that the record format really hasn't
changed from 2013 as far as I can tell.

>> Previously the audit record generated by ima_parse_rule() did not
>> include this info.  The change in this patch will affect both the
>> existing and the new INTEGRITY_AUDIT_POLICY_RULE audit records.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com