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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 CB404C433E0 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:30:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FCEF20691 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:30:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="c1siN1Yi" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7FCEF20691 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1591723816; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=dLY1qBrNVKmT94e+0WURcPhH67mc/r4RXBLPKz0Roh8=; b=c1siN1YiiXtVVUitTRc6+1eTybsBfc7IWX54UfUIjDNkvtan9wGapjdJYTsSbHcc1vuSIQ qDpy7bfJw2rV+6tIVqTwgqPSDIeqybKCV/E/TMSge0JPKXvkWrcPIF959/uVgD2+l9xaVl Kz2OdJuVRxc/eW2M7dE5zfbvpAnUFPA= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-417-3H4NmFTDNKSutlHjmNQ1Og-1; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 13:30:12 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 3H4NmFTDNKSutlHjmNQ1Og-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57893800053; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:30:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.20]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E417260C87; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:30:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 649081809547; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:30:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 059HFF9l030804 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:15:16 -0400 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id C8C222026971; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:15:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast02.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C49682026E1C for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:15:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EB908007B1 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:15:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-241-5DQv4bHpMzS2x5AeZcRJTQ-1; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 13:15:07 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 5DQv4bHpMzS2x5AeZcRJTQ-1 Received: from pps.filterd (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 059H1kxq065235; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:15:05 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31gg821tdw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Jun 2020 13:15:04 -0400 Received: from m0187473.ppops.net (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 059H1wwa065954; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:15:02 -0400 Received: from ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (46.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.70]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31gg821tc4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Jun 2020 13:15:02 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 059HBROl027618; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:14:59 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 31g2s7tktt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Jun 2020 17:14:59 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (mk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 059HEvsT57082040 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:14:57 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8828F42041; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:14:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7EC54203F; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:14:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.146.136]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:14:56 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <1591722896.5567.31.camel@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] IMA: Add audit log for failure conditions From: Mimi Zohar To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian , Steve Grubb Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 13:14:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <518a51b7-6c8d-f55f-c73a-b15abae8e0af@linux.microsoft.com> References: <20200608215343.4491-1-nramas@linux.microsoft.com> <27448076.Og45N0Lxmj@x2> <3776526.Vj75JV9fuy@x2> <518a51b7-6c8d-f55f-c73a-b15abae8e0af@linux.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-06-09_10:2020-06-09, 2020-06-09 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 cotscore=-2147483648 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2006090126 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.4 X-loop: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 13:30:07 -0400 Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-BeenThere: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk List-Id: Linux Audit Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 10:00 -0700, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 6/9/20 9:43 AM, Steve Grubb wrote: > > >> The number in parenthesis is the error code (such as ENOMEM, EINVAL, > >> etc.) IMA uses this format for reporting TPM errors in one of the audit > >> messages (In ima_add_template_entry()). I followed the same pattern. > >> > >> Would it be better if the value for "cause" is formatted as > >> > >> cause=hashing_error_-22 > >> > >> cause=alloc_entry_-12 > > > > Neither fit the name=value style that all other events follow. What would fit > > the style is something like this: > > > > cause=hashing_error errno=-22 > > > > cause=alloc_entry errno=-12 > > > > Would this be OK? Also, errno is only to illustrate. You can name it > > something else as long as there are no use case collisions with our > > dictionary of field names. > > > > https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-documentation/blob/master/specs/fields/ > > field-dictionary.csv > > I am fine with this. > > "errno" is currently not listed in the dictionary of audit message field > names (Thanks for the pointer to this one Steve) > > Mimi - please let me know if you have any concerns with adding the > "result" code in "errno" field in integrity_audit_msg(). > > Sample message: > > [ 8.051937] audit: type=1804 audit(1591633422.365:8): pid=1 uid=0 > auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295 subj=system_u:system_r:init_t:s0 > op=measuring_keys cause=hashing_error errno=-22 comm="systemd" > name=".builtin_trusted_keys" res=0 Yes, that's fine. Mimi -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit 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=-7.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=ham 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 8C91EC433DF for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:15:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7435B20774 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:15:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731569AbgFIRPI (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:15:08 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:49550 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729795AbgFIRPH (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:15:07 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 059H1kxt065235; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:15:05 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31gg821tdu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Jun 2020 13:15:04 -0400 Received: from m0187473.ppops.net (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 059H1wwZ065954; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:15:02 -0400 Received: from ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (46.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.70]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31gg821tc4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Jun 2020 13:15:02 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 059HBROl027618; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:14:59 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 31g2s7tktt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Jun 2020 17:14:59 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (mk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 059HEvsT57082040 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:14:57 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8828F42041; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:14:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7EC54203F; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:14:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.146.136]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:14:56 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <1591722896.5567.31.camel@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] IMA: Add audit log for failure conditions From: Mimi Zohar To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian , Steve Grubb Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com, paul@paul-moore.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 13:14:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <518a51b7-6c8d-f55f-c73a-b15abae8e0af@linux.microsoft.com> References: <20200608215343.4491-1-nramas@linux.microsoft.com> <27448076.Og45N0Lxmj@x2> <3776526.Vj75JV9fuy@x2> <518a51b7-6c8d-f55f-c73a-b15abae8e0af@linux.microsoft.com> 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: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216,18.0.687 definitions=2020-06-09_10:2020-06-09,2020-06-09 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 cotscore=-2147483648 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2006090126 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 10:00 -0700, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 6/9/20 9:43 AM, Steve Grubb wrote: > > >> The number in parenthesis is the error code (such as ENOMEM, EINVAL, > >> etc.) IMA uses this format for reporting TPM errors in one of the audit > >> messages (In ima_add_template_entry()). I followed the same pattern. > >> > >> Would it be better if the value for "cause" is formatted as > >> > >> cause=hashing_error_-22 > >> > >> cause=alloc_entry_-12 > > > > Neither fit the name=value style that all other events follow. What would fit > > the style is something like this: > > > > cause=hashing_error errno=-22 > > > > cause=alloc_entry errno=-12 > > > > Would this be OK? Also, errno is only to illustrate. You can name it > > something else as long as there are no use case collisions with our > > dictionary of field names. > > > > https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-documentation/blob/master/specs/fields/ > > field-dictionary.csv > > I am fine with this. > > "errno" is currently not listed in the dictionary of audit message field > names (Thanks for the pointer to this one Steve) > > Mimi - please let me know if you have any concerns with adding the > "result" code in "errno" field in integrity_audit_msg(). > > Sample message: > > [ 8.051937] audit: type=1804 audit(1591633422.365:8): pid=1 uid=0 > auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295 subj=system_u:system_r:init_t:s0 > op=measuring_keys cause=hashing_error errno=-22 comm="systemd" > name=".builtin_trusted_keys" res=0 Yes, that's fine. Mimi