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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 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 7B4D2C2D0C2 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 19:45:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460F72253D for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 19:45:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728243AbgABTpM (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jan 2020 14:45:12 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:47578 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727951AbgABTpM (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jan 2020 14:45:12 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 002JcEvp079762 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 14:45:10 -0500 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2x869ssh2r-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 02 Jan 2020 14:45:10 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 19:45:09 -0000 Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.26.194) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 2 Jan 2020 19:45:07 -0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 002Jj6RB26214670 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 2 Jan 2020 19:45:06 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6EF311CD04; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 19:18:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F9811CB29; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 19:18:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.148.97]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 2 Jan 2020 19:18:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: IMA's use of the audit rule code From: Mimi Zohar To: Casey Schaufler , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2020 14:18:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 20010219-0008-0000-0000-000003460143 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 20010219-0009-0000-0000-00004A6638A4 Message-Id: <1577992707.5874.110.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,18.0.572 definitions=2020-01-02_06:2020-01-02,2020-01-02 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-2001020157 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2020-01-02 at 09:06 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote: > IMA refines security_audit_rule_init to security_filter_rule_init. > I need to understand what, if any, relationship there is between > IMA's use of the audit rule mechanisms and the audit system's use. > Is this simple code reuse, or is there some interaction between IMA > and audit? > > I'm trying to sort out the problem of audit rules when > there are multiple security modules. It looks as if there is also a > problem for integrity rules, but it looks different. The "easy" > change for audit doesn't fit with what's in IMA. If there's no > interaction between the IMA and audit use of the rule infrastructure > it's reasonable to fix them separately. If there is interaction > things get messy. They're both comparing rules with LSM labels.  In IMA's case, the LSM labels are used to identify which files are in/out of the IMA policy - "measurement", "appraisal", and "audit".  I'm not sure how different this is than the audit subsystem. Mimi