Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ima: only audit failed appraisal verifications
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
        dmitry.kasatkin@huawei.com, mjg59@google.com
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@huawei.com,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Mon, 20 May 2019 17:20:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20190516161257.6640-4-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
References: <20190516161257.6640-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
         <20190516161257.6640-4-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <1558387225.4039.78.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2019-05-16 at 18:12 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> This patch ensures that integrity_audit_msg() is called only when the
> status is not INTEGRITY_PASS.
> 
> Fixes: 8606404fa555c ("ima: digital signature verification support")
> Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> index a32ed5d7afd1..f5f4506bcb8e 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c
> @@ -359,8 +359,9 @@ int ima_appraise_measurement(enum ima_hooks func,
>  			status = INTEGRITY_PASS;
>  		}
>  
> -		integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA, inode, filename,
> -				    op, cause, rc, 0);
> +		if (status != INTEGRITY_PASS)
> +			integrity_audit_msg(AUDIT_INTEGRITY_DATA, inode,
> +					    filename, op, cause, rc, 0);

For some reason, the integrity verification has failed.  In some
specific cases, we'll let it pass, but do we really want to remove any
indication that it failed in all cases?

Mimi


>  	} else {
>  		ima_cache_flags(iint, func);
>  	}