[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1527720076.3534.84.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 18:41:16 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...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 Wed, 2018-05-30 at 18:15 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> 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?
Yes, I think so. Calling audit_log_task_info() will only add the
"exe=" and "tty=" to the new AUDIT_INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists