Re: [PATCH] ima: Rename internal audit rule functions
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 -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
Re: [PATCH] ima: Rename internal audit rule functions
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. I'll go the "quick fix" route of renaming them as ima_filter_rule_*(). Tyler > > Mimi -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
Re: [PATCH] ima: Rename internal audit rule functions
[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. Mimi -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
