Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 18 May 2018 12:00:26 -0400
From:   Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
To:     Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, paul@paul-moore.com,
        sgrubb@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: add containerid support for IMA-audit
Message-ID: <20180518160026.i5cxkg4eggu2yqpz@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
References: <20180305135008.po6lheqnmkqqo6q4@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
 <1520259854.10396.313.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180308112104.z67wohdvjqemy7wy@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
 <efb6c164-febe-67bb-43a9-795476c4902f@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180517213001.62caslkjwv575xgl@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
 <86df5c2c-9db3-21b9-b91b-30a4f53f9504@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1526647996.3632.164.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <ef567d60-42f7-0a87-8597-1ef381e15be0@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1526654395.3632.196.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1347e0c5-40c9-34a4-9c54-60bd2917b2d7@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1347e0c5-40c9-34a4-9c54-60bd2917b2d7@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171027
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2018-05-18 10:52, Stefan Berger wrote:
> 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(). ?Could 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? ?The 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.

If I understand your question correctly, then no, since each one is a
different type of record, hence the half dozen IMA record types:
#define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA        1800 /* Data integrity verification */
#define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_METADATA    1801 /* Metadata integrity verification */
#define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_STATUS      1802 /* Integrity enable status */
#define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_HASH        1803 /* Integrity HASH type */
#define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_PCR         1804 /* PCR invalidation msgs */
#define AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE        1805 /* policy rule */

> Most do but those two that currently use
> AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE do not. Should that be changed as well?

As far as I can tell, all the other IMA audit record types are fine.

> ??? Stefan

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635