[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250926-ima-audit-v1-0-64d75fdc8fdc@google.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 01:45:05 +0200
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>
Cc: Frank Dinoff <fdinoff@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] ima: add dont_audit and fs_subtype to policy language
This series adds a "dont_audit" action that cancels out following
"audit" actions (as we already have for other action types), and also
adds an "fs_subtype" that can be used to distinguish between FUSE
filesystems.
With these two patches applied, as a toy example, you can use the
following policy:
```
dont_audit fsname=fuse fs_subtype=sshfs
audit func=BPRM_CHECK fsname=fuse
```
I have tested that with this policy, executing a binary from a
"fuse-zip" FUSE filesystem results in an audit log entry:
```
type=INTEGRITY_RULE msg=audit([...]): file="/home/user/ima/zipmount/usr/bin/echo" hash="sha256:1d82e8[...]
```
while executing a binary from an "sshfs" FUSE filesystem does not
generate any audit log entries.
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
---
Jann Horn (2):
ima: add dont_audit action to suppress audit actions
ima: add fs_subtype condition for distinguishing FUSE instances
Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy | 3 +-
security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 00642a06d60c897a8348784e1eee9e5369219ce5
change-id: 20250925-ima-audit-8bd219dcc6f6
--
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists