[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 19:21:51 -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.
On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 14:30 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
>
> On 2020-02-12 6:47 a.m., Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > Hi Tushar,
> >
> > Please remove the period at the end of the Subject line.
> Thanks. I will fix it in the next iteration.
> >
> > 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.
> I believe both IMA audit messages and kernel message should be emitted -
> for better discoverability and diagnosability.
Like file measurement failures, failure to measure a key or the boot
command line should be audited as well. For debugging purposes, you
could make this message pr_devel.
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists