lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] integrity: Add errno field in audit message
From
Date
On 6/16/20 8:29 AM, Steve Grubb wrote:

>>>>> The idea is a good idea, but you're assuming that "result" is always
>>>>> errno. That was probably true originally, but isn't now. For
>>>>> example, ima_appraise_measurement() calls xattr_verify(), which
>>>>> compares the security.ima hash with the calculated file hash. On
>>>>> failure, it returns the result of memcmp(). Each and every code path
>>>>> will need to be checked.
>>>>
>>>> Good catch Mimi.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of "errno" should we just use "result" and log the value given
>>>> in the result parameter?
>>>
>>> That would likely collide with another field of the same name which is
>>> the
>>> operation's results. If it really is errno, the name is fine. It's
>>> generic
>>> enough that it can be reused on other events if that mattered.
>>
>> Steve, what is the historical reason why we have both "res" and
>> "result" for indicating a boolean success/fail? I'm just curious how
>> we ended up this way, and who may still be using "result".
>
> I think its pam and some other user space things did this. But because of
> mixed machines in datacenters supporting multiple versions of OS, we have to
> leave result alone. It has to be 0,1 or success/fail. We cannot use it for
> errno.

As Mimi had pointed out, since the value passed in result parameter is
not always an error code, "errno" is not an appropriate name.

Can we add a new field, say, "op_result" to report the result of the
specified operation?

thanks,
-lakshmi


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-16 17:44    [W:0.920 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site