[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRAc3oCUhZmwbup6ivN3A_AMiBDxgjME_Ly75qY_doLVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 22:19:10 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: zohar@...ux.ibm.com, sgrubb@...hat.com, rgb@...hat.com,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] integrity: Add errno field in audit message
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:58 PM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
<nramas@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> On 6/10/20 6:45 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> > I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to mention this before you posted this
> > patch, but for the past several years we have been sticking with a
> > policy of only adding new fields to the end of existing records;
> > please adjust this patch accordingly. Otherwise, this looks fine to
> > me.
> >
> >> audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, get_task_comm(name, current));
> >> if (fname) {
> >> audit_log_format(ab, " name=");
> >> --
>
> Steve mentioned that since this new field "errno" is not a searchable
> entry, it can be added anywhere in the audit log message.
Steve and I have a different opinion on this issue. I won't rehash
the long argument or drag you into it, but I will just say that the
*kernel* has had a policy of only adding fields to the end of existing
records unless under extreme cases (this is not an extreme case).
> But I have no problem moving this to the end of the audit record.
Great, please do that. Thank you.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists