[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <b9b37328-2977-39fe-e3d2-822144dce6f1@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 18:15:31 -0400
From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] ima: Differentiate auditing policy rules from "audit"
actions
On 05/30/2018 06:00 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-05-30 at 17:49 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> So the other choice is to only keep patches 1,2, 6, and 7, so leave most
>> of the integrity audit messages untouched. Then only create a different
>> format for the new AUDIT_INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE (current 8/8) that shares
>> (for consistency reasons) the same format with the existing integrity
>> audit messages but also misses tty= and exe= ?
> Another option would be for the new AUDIT_INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE to
> call audit_log_task_info() similar to what ima_audit_measurement()
> does.
Right. [That would mean keep 1,2, 7 and modify 8.] Is that the best
solution?
>
> Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists