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=-15.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=unavailable 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 A9509C3B186 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 22:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8143121734 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 22:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.microsoft.com header.i=@linux.microsoft.com header.b="emcoU9vB" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729195AbgBLWa1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Feb 2020 17:30:27 -0500 Received: from linux.microsoft.com ([13.77.154.182]:47882 "EHLO linux.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727564AbgBLWa1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Feb 2020 17:30:27 -0500 Received: from [10.137.112.97] (unknown [131.107.147.225]) by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8670020B9C02; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 14:30:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 8670020B9C02 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1581546626; bh=NUHobxfL+geUi+bYVC6mVUzTu5F8T6tQj72MtVtjTGg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=emcoU9vBbJ592sx4KQcu6JfCoKEWTR6ew1L19xR88+ixXeBb49RETwSge7xyTZB8U YlmtOoxJRqG6PtdHijT44jEe4ibgxh7cqmjB4FtYZNoxp3u1SHfLXT7kLGJ4shDrUn 2/eRY636y4r2i4hzN95XuUfz/30de3V5hKpoYPiY= Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] IMA: Add log statements for failure conditions. To: Mimi Zohar , joe@perches.com, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Cc: sashal@kernel.org, nramas@linux.microsoft.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20200211231414.6640-1-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com> <20200211231414.6640-3-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com> <1581518823.8515.49.camel@linux.ibm.com> From: Tushar Sugandhi Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 14:30:26 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1581518823.8515.49.camel@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2020-02-12 6:47 a.m., Mimi Zohar wrote: > Hi Tushar, > > Please remove the period at the end of the  Subject line. Thanks. I will fix it in the next iteration. > > On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 15:14 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote: >> process_buffer_measurement() does not have log messages for failure >> conditions. >> >> This change adds a log statement in the above function. > > I agree some form of notification needs to be added.  The question is > whether the failure should be audited or a kernel message emitted. >  IMA emits audit messages (integrity_audit_msg) for a number of > reasons - on failure to calculate a file hash, invalid policy rules, > failure to communicate with the TPM, signature verification errors, > etc. I believe both IMA audit messages and kernel message should be emitted - for better discoverability and diagnosability. > >> >> Signed-off-by: Tushar Sugandhi >> Reviewed-by: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian >> Suggested-by: Joe Perches >> --- >> security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c >> index 9fe949c6a530..6e1576d9eb48 100644 >> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c >> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c >> @@ -757,6 +757,9 @@ void process_buffer_measurement(const void *buf, int size, >> ima_free_template_entry(entry); >> >> out: >> + if (ret < 0) >> + pr_err("%s: failed, result: %d\n", __func__, ret); >> + >> return; >> } >> > > With 3/3 "IMA: Add module name and base name prefix to log", the > resulting message will be "KBUILD_MODNAME: KBUILD_BASENAME: func:". >  Isn't that a bit much? > For this specific message, it will look like below. "ima: ima_main: process_buffer_measurement: failed, result: %d" In general, adding KBUILD_BASENAME seems helpful to pinpoint the location of the issue. > Mimi >