From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ACE6C433E1 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:56:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17EF221534 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:55:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Mogf/U3D" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 17EF221534 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1592322958; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=KV7z6sf4lhUdmBO3wX9z97NMqV5d55UD59xg0mKdtjI=; b=Mogf/U3DOX3COHkEG6/UmyuTEPe2rwm8LQlgpjR/lVrfcFT5g5ycWx9UISJHAPIELlpnG5 CM6/mHiNs31I2VdgDFt0xX8Lpyn4kVU/tKejf89rZMqqijSbEg8OByyBmiDaKWbQ2YqNyf B0RiS0DehOiRvHt0wLLjQkGthB4Aa6A= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-106-MEgivadZPBenlKN6HHIoEw-1; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:55:55 -0400 X-MC-Unique: MEgivadZPBenlKN6HHIoEw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7873803328; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:55:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D5C81001925; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:55:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8C2833C6; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:55:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 05GFtofJ001126 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:55:50 -0400 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id D182060C47; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:55:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from x2.localnet (ovpn-113-82.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.82]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845DE60C05; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:55:44 +0000 (UTC) From: Steve Grubb To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] integrity: Add errno field in audit message Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:55:42 -0400 Message-ID: <1717101.NiBDiG0Zly@x2> Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: <958966b6-9972-051f-a7d5-cd6d1beb3244@linux.microsoft.com> References: <20200611000400.3771-1-nramas@linux.microsoft.com> <6643272.rC52FQZPYE@x2> <958966b6-9972-051f-a7d5-cd6d1beb3244@linux.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-loop: linux-audit@redhat.com Cc: rgb@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar , linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org X-BeenThere: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk List-Id: Linux Audit Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:43:31 AM EDT Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote: > 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? Sure. But since it is errno sometimes, how would we know when to translate it? -Steve -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585E4C433DF for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:56:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A03B21534 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:56:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Rix2pl7O" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730157AbgFPP4A (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:56:00 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:41206 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1733131AbgFPPz5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:55:57 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1592322956; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GMvFt9x/GME+tYUTng0QoYKwCh/XoVUUjz+YXccVf9k=; b=Rix2pl7O64W4uD1zXV3b8GB/hQEG/jiMJ/dnB1avC8mVxFsaDtckW9Xon74ExM1FicfEf1 4olhmdwo4cCqoq7yDX2zd4cJkTLPvqjIJ3SZE0F7iIaG1rTIV87AHehTB9hWaJD13WOEet AXxuZQgWmLU8NpjiyeEJAsHAbb0uHfk= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-240-Vc28Lxq8P5CWEsmSzSE5_g-1; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:55:52 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Vc28Lxq8P5CWEsmSzSE5_g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2B8DE918; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:55:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from x2.localnet (ovpn-113-82.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.82]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845DE60C05; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:55:44 +0000 (UTC) From: Steve Grubb To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian Cc: Paul Moore , Mimi Zohar , rgb@redhat.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] integrity: Add errno field in audit message Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:55:42 -0400 Message-ID: <1717101.NiBDiG0Zly@x2> Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: <958966b6-9972-051f-a7d5-cd6d1beb3244@linux.microsoft.com> References: <20200611000400.3771-1-nramas@linux.microsoft.com> <6643272.rC52FQZPYE@x2> <958966b6-9972-051f-a7d5-cd6d1beb3244@linux.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:43:31 AM EDT Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote: > 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? Sure. But since it is errno sometimes, how would we know when to translate it? -Steve