Re: [PATCH]: Add security check before flushing SAD/SPD

[Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>]

On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 10:33 -0600, Joy Latten wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 01:39 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> 
> > 
> > In either case though proper auditing needs to be addressed.  I see that
> > the first patch from Joy wouldn't audit deletion failures.  It appears
> > to me if the check is done per policy then the security hook return code
> > needs to be recorded and passed to xfrm_audit_log instead of the hard
> > coded 1 result used now.
> > 
> > Assuming we go with James's double loop what should we be auditing for a
> > security hook denial?  Just audit the first policy entry which we tried
> > to remove but couldn't and then leave the rest of the auditing in those
> > functions the way it is now in case there was no denial, calling
> > xfrm_audit_log with a hard coded 1 for the result?
> > 
> Actually, I thought the original intent of the ipsec auditing was to
> just audit changes made to the SAD/SPD databases, not securiy hook
> denials, right? 

Then what is the point of the 'result' field that we capture and log in
xfrm_audit_log if the only things you care to audit are successful
changes to the databases?

-Eric