From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Berger Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: add containerid support for IMA-audit Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 14:04:08 -0400 Message-ID: <7abd3460-0797-f003-12c7-7329beb0835b__20448.9052332521$1526925754$gmane$org@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1520257393.10396.291.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180518155659.porewd6moctumkys@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <1526661264.3404.55.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5705556.pzqfGOkdjC@x2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5705556.pzqfGOkdjC@x2> Content-Language: en-MW List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Steve Grubb , Mimi Zohar Cc: paul-r2n+y4ga6xFZroRs9YW3xA@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, LKML , Linux-Audit Mailing List , linux-integrity List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On 05/21/2018 01:21 PM, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Friday, May 18, 2018 12:34:24 PM EDT 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? > From a user space perspective, I don't care as long the event is well formed Are you saying this because of the tools you referred to that require proper ordering and all fields need to be available? > (No unnecessary untrusted string logging) and we have the required fields for > searching: pid, uid, auid, tty, session, subj, comm, exe, & res. And the > object is identifiable in the event. There's at least one documented user that showed the existing format... https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2016/11/extending_linux_exec.html