[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c224c5a7-6e77-4ebf-7c91-2ec0c078a6f8@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:01:40 -0800
From: Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.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 2020-02-12 4:21 p.m., Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 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.
Ok. I will change this to pr_devel in next iteration.
>
> Mimi
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists