linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] integrity: Add errno field in audit message

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: <8b3c99b9-6691-5ae2-a287-a22a2c801c59@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:05:22 -0700
From:   Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, bauerman@...ux.ibm.com,
        nayna@...ux.ibm.com, sgrubb@...hat.com, paul@...l-moore.com
Cc:     rgb@...hat.com, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-audit@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] integrity: Add errno field in audit message

On 6/18/20 10:41 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:

> 
> For the reasons that I mentioned previously, unless others are willing
> to add their Reviewed-by tag not for the audit aspect in particular,
> but IMA itself, I'm not comfortable making this change all at once.
> 
> Previously I suggested making the existing integrity_audit_msg() a
> wrapper for a new function with errno.  Steve said, "We normally do
> not like to have fields that swing in and out ...", but said setting
> errno to 0 is fine.  The original integrity_audit_msg() function would
> call the new function with errno set to 0.

If the original integrity_audit_msg() always calls the new function with 
errno set to 0, there would be audit messages where "res" field is set 
to "0" (fail) because "result" was non-zero, but errno set to "0" 
(success). Wouldn't this be confusing?

In PATCH 1/2 I've made changes to make the "result" parameter to 
integrity_audit_msg() consistent - i.e., it is always an error code (0 
for success and a negative value for error). Would that address your 
concerns?

thanks,
  -lakshmi