linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] IMA: Add log statements for failure conditions.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1581518823.8515.49.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Feb 2020 09:47:03 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@...ux.microsoft.com>, joe@...ches.com,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     sashal@...nel.org, nramas@...ux.microsoft.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] IMA: Add log statements for failure conditions.

Hi Tushar,

Please remove the period at the end of the  Subject line.

On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 15:14 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
> process_buffer_measurement() does not have log messages for failure
> conditions.
> 
> This change adds a log statement in the above function. 

I agree some form of notification needs to be added.  The question is
whether the failure should be audited or a kernel message emitted.
 IMA emits audit messages (integrity_audit_msg) for a number of
reasons - on failure to calculate a file hash, invalid policy rules,
failure to communicate with the TPM, signature verification errors,
etc.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@...ux.microsoft.com>
> Reviewed-by: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
> Suggested-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> ---
>  security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> index 9fe949c6a530..6e1576d9eb48 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> @@ -757,6 +757,9 @@ void process_buffer_measurement(const void *buf, int size,
>  		ima_free_template_entry(entry);
>  
>  out:
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		pr_err("%s: failed, result: %d\n", __func__, ret);
> +
>  	return;
>  }
>  

With 3/3 "IMA: Add module name and base name prefix to log", the
resulting message will be "KBUILD_MODNAME: KBUILD_BASENAME: func:".
 Isn't that a bit much?

Mimi