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=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=unavailable 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 D7F9DC433E2 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:23:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C029820787 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:23:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728054AbgGPOXW (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:23:22 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:27504 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727044AbgGPOXW (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:23:22 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06GE5bCl029114; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:23:09 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 329uejmxaj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:23:09 -0400 Received: from m0098393.ppops.net (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 06GE8SBE039225; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:23:08 -0400 Received: from ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (6b.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.107]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 329uejmx8e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:23:08 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06GEFwkI008327; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:23:05 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 327527jw4b-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:23:05 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 06GEN3Nm53215382 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:23:03 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E68414C064; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:23:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8B34C046; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:23:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.80.202.131]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:23:01 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <1594909381.12900.361.camel@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ima: Rename internal audit rule functions From: Mimi Zohar To: Tyler Hicks 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 Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:23:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20200710194234.GA7254@sequoia> References: <20200629153037.337349-1-tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com> <1593466203.5085.62.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20200710194234.GA7254@sequoia> 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-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-16_06:2020-07-16,2020-07-16 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=2 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007160105 Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Fri, 2020-07-10 at 14:42 -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote: > 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. The security_filter_rule_* wasn't meant to be in addition, but as a replacement for security_audit_rule_* > > I'll go the "quick fix" route of renaming them as ima_filter_rule_*(). That's fine. Mimi