From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752680AbeERQvI (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2018 12:51:08 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:44960 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752605AbeERQvF (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2018 12:51:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 12:50:28 -0400 From: Richard Guy Briggs To: Mimi Zohar Cc: Stefan Berger , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Linux-Audit Mailing List , linux-integrity , LKML , paul@paul-moore.com, sgrubb@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: add containerid support for IMA-audit Message-ID: <20180518165028.qjcuubxrqmsfg4vb@madcap2.tricolour.ca> References: <1520259854.10396.313.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180308112104.z67wohdvjqemy7wy@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <20180517213001.62caslkjwv575xgl@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <86df5c2c-9db3-21b9-b91b-30a4f53f9504@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1526647996.3632.164.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1526654395.3632.196.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180518155659.porewd6moctumkys@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <1526661264.3404.55.camel@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: <1526661264.3404.55.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171027 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2018-05-18 12:34, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 11:56 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On 2018-05-18 10:39, 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? > > > > No, go ahead and make the change now. I'm expecting that the > > containerid record will just be another auxiliary record and should not > > affect you folks. > > To summarize, we need to disambiguate the 1805, as both > ima_parse_rule() and ima_audit_measurement() are using the same number > with different formats.  The main usage of 1805 that we are aware of > is ima_audit_measurement().  Yet the "type=" name for > ima_audit_measurement() should be INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT, not > INTEGRITY_RULE. > > option 1: breaks both uses > 1805 - INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT - ima_audit_measurement() > 1806 - INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE - ima_parse_rule() > > option 2: breaks the most common usage > 1805 - INTEGRITY_RULE - ima_parse_rule() > 1806 - INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT - ima_audit_measurement() > > option 3: leaves the most common usage with the wrong name, and breaks > the other less common usage > 1805 - INTEGRITY_RULE - ima_audit_measurement() > 1806 - INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE - ima_parse_rule() > > So option 3 is the best option? Yes, I think so, but option 2 I would be willing to consider. I'd like to get Paul and Steve's opinions on this. > Mimi - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:44960 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752605AbeERQvF (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2018 12:51:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 12:50:28 -0400 From: Richard Guy Briggs To: Mimi Zohar Cc: Stefan Berger , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Linux-Audit Mailing List , linux-integrity , LKML , paul@paul-moore.com, sgrubb@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: add containerid support for IMA-audit Message-ID: <20180518165028.qjcuubxrqmsfg4vb@madcap2.tricolour.ca> References: <1520259854.10396.313.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180308112104.z67wohdvjqemy7wy@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <20180517213001.62caslkjwv575xgl@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <86df5c2c-9db3-21b9-b91b-30a4f53f9504@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1526647996.3632.164.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1526654395.3632.196.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180518155659.porewd6moctumkys@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <1526661264.3404.55.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: <1526661264.3404.55.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2018-05-18 12:34, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 11:56 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On 2018-05-18 10:39, 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? > > > > No, go ahead and make the change now. I'm expecting that the > > containerid record will just be another auxiliary record and should not > > affect you folks. > > To summarize, we need to disambiguate the 1805, as both > ima_parse_rule() and ima_audit_measurement() are using the same number > with different formats. The main usage of 1805 that we are aware of > is ima_audit_measurement(). Yet the "type=" name for > ima_audit_measurement() should be INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT, not > INTEGRITY_RULE. > > option 1: breaks both uses > 1805 - INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT - ima_audit_measurement() > 1806 - INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE - ima_parse_rule() > > option 2: breaks the most common usage > 1805 - INTEGRITY_RULE - ima_parse_rule() > 1806 - INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT - ima_audit_measurement() > > option 3: leaves the most common usage with the wrong name, and breaks > the other less common usage > 1805 - INTEGRITY_RULE - ima_audit_measurement() > 1806 - INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE - ima_parse_rule() > > So option 3 is the best option? Yes, I think so, but option 2 I would be willing to consider. I'd like to get Paul and Steve's opinions on this. > Mimi - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs 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