[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <21646a72-e782-e33a-9e75-5cc98b241f36@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 13:53:04 -0400
From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
Cc: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, paul@...l-moore.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: add containerid support for IMA-audit
On 05/21/2018 12:58 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 10:18:13 AM EDT Stefan Berger wrote:
>>> audit_log_container_info() then releasing the local context. This
>>> version of the record has additional concerns covered here:
>>> https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/52
>> Following the discussion there and the concern with breaking user space,
>> how can we split up the AUDIT_INTEGRITY_RULE that is used in
>> ima_audit_measurement() and ima_parse_rule(), without 'breaking user
>> space'?
>>
>> A message produced by ima_parse_rule() looks like this here:
>>
>> type=INTEGRITY_RULE msg=audit(1526566213.870:305): action="dont_measure"
>> fsmagic="0x9fa0" res=1
> Why is action and fsmagic being logged as untrusted strings? Untrusted
> strings are used when an unprivileged user can affect the contents of the
> field such as creating a file with space or special characters in the name.
>
> Also, subject and object information is missing. Who loaded this rule?
>
>> in contrast to that an INTEGRITY_PCR record type:
>>
>> type=INTEGRITY_PCR msg=audit(1526566235.193:334): pid=1615 uid=0 auid=0
>> ses=2 subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
>> op="invalid_pcr" cause="open_writers" comm="scp"
>> name="/var/log/audit/audit.log" dev="dm-0" ino=1962625 res=1
> Why is op & cause being logged as an untrusted string? This also has
> incomplete subject information.
It's calling audit_log_string() in both cases:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c#L48
>
>> Should some of the fields from INTEGRITY_PCR also appear in
>> INTEGRITY_RULE? If so, which ones?
> pid, uid, auid, tty, session, subj, comm, exe, res. <- these are required to
> be searchable
>
>> 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?
> The audit user space utilities pretty much expects those fields in that order
> for any IMA originating events. You can add things like op or cause before
We will call into audit_log_task, which will put the parameters into
correct order:
auid uid gid ses subj pid comm exe
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/auditsc.c#L2433
> that. The reason why you can do that is those additional fields are not
> required to be searchable by common criteria.
>
> -Steve
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists