Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] LSM: Define SELinux function to measure security state | From | Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <> | Date | Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:03:32 -0700 |
| |
On 7/16/20 12:45 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 3:13 PM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian > <nramas@linux.microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> On 7/16/20 11:54 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >>> Not sure about this error handling approach (silent, proceeding as if >>> the length was zero and then later failing with ENOMEM on every >>> attempt?). I'd be more inclined to panic/BUG here but I know Linus >>> doesn't like that. >> I am not sure if failing (kernel panic/BUG) to "measure" LSM data under >> memory pressure conditions is the right thing. But I am open to treating >> this error as a fatal error. Please let me know. > > Let's at least log an error message since it otherwise silently > disables all measuring of security state. Agree - will log error messages as appropriate.
> Also not sure why we bother returning errors from > selinux_measure_data() since nothing appears to check or use the > result. Maybe SELinux can log audit messages on failures, but I guess it may be better to do that closer to where the error occurs.
Will change selinux_measure_data() to void function.
> Don't know if integrity/IMA has any equivalent to the audit > subsystem's concept of audit_failure settings to control whether > errors that prevent auditing (measuring) are handled silently, with a > log message, or via a panic. If not, I guess that can be explored > separately. >
Yes - integrity subsystem logs audit messages for errors\failures.
-lakshmi
| |