From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94492C433E0 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:42:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 687DA20748 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:42:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.microsoft.com header.i=@linux.microsoft.com header.b="hl4DsaIP" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728049AbgGJTmp (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:42:45 -0400 Received: from linux.microsoft.com ([13.77.154.182]:33250 "EHLO linux.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726908AbgGJTmo (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:42:44 -0400 Received: from sequoia (162-237-133-238.lightspeed.rcsntx.sbcglobal.net [162.237.133.238]) by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1865420B4908; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:42:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 1865420B4908 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1594410163; bh=63GnlMtecE6BiaHswYBO/QVyHrUs379BtYxjHINyyr4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=hl4DsaIPiEnT2meObPBtEGfyVG3+A2UyEmhEdOgxEOxR8y7D5X7FGEPAvkxBgLyZz 7qBhQYzUg7Klj+adqGgd3QKhDZf6uv8YMPQo1TybV9I6G+kQIjbYz3+PBoRvIB/im1 ii0PS+mr6b7AV/FBFpk2qzo/Jbdn14bjgRmderUw= Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:42:34 -0500 From: Tyler Hicks To: Mimi Zohar Cc: Dmitry Kasatkin , James Morris , "Serge E . Hallyn" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Casey Schaufler , linux-audit@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] ima: Rename internal audit rule functions Message-ID: <20200710194234.GA7254@sequoia> References: <20200629153037.337349-1-tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com> <1593466203.5085.62.camel@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1593466203.5085.62.camel@linux.ibm.com> Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On 2020-06-29 17:30:03, Mimi Zohar wrote: > [Cc'ing the audit mailing list] > > On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 10:30 -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote: > > > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h > > index ff2bf57ff0c7..5d62ee8319f4 100644 > > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h > > @@ -419,24 +419,24 @@ static inline void ima_free_modsig(struct modsig *modsig) > > /* LSM based policy rules require audit */ > > #ifdef CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES > > > > -#define security_filter_rule_init security_audit_rule_init > > -#define security_filter_rule_free security_audit_rule_free > > -#define security_filter_rule_match security_audit_rule_match > > +#define ima_audit_rule_init security_audit_rule_init > > +#define ima_audit_rule_free security_audit_rule_free > > +#define ima_audit_rule_match security_audit_rule_match > > Instead of defining an entirely new method of identifying files, IMA > piggybacks on top of the existing audit rule syntax.  IMA policy rules > "filter" based on this information. > > IMA already audits security/integrity related events.  Using the word > "audit" here will make things even more confusing than they currently > are.  Renaming these functions as ima_audit_rule_XXX provides no > benefit.  At that point, IMA might as well call the > security_audit_rule prefixed function names directly.  As a quick fix, > rename them as "ima_filter_rule". > > The correct solution would probably be to rename these prefixed > "security_audit_rule" functions as "security_filter_rule", so that > both the audit subsystem and IMA could use them. There doesn't seem to be any interest, from the audit side, in re-using these. I don't quite understand why they would want to use them since they're just simple wrappers around the security_audit_rule_*() functions. I'll go the "quick fix" route of renaming them as ima_filter_rule_*(). Tyler > > Mimi