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] IMA: Add log statements for failure conditions.
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     sashal@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200207195346.4017-1-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20200207195346.4017-2-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
 <1581253027.5585.671.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <da7bd0441ef3044cb40d705b8bb176bfdf391557.camel@perches.com>
From:   Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <41d61aa5-db98-6291-d91f-104f029c897f@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Feb 2020 08:40:39 -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: <da7bd0441ef3044cb40d705b8bb176bfdf391557.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2/9/20 6:46 PM, Joe Perches wrote:

>>
>> In addition, as Shuah Khan suggested for the security/integrity/
>> directory, "there is an opportunity here to add #define pr_fmt(fmt)
>> KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt to integrity.h and get rid of duplicate
>> defines."  

Good point - we'll make that change.

With Joe Perches patch (waiting for it to be re-posted),
>> are all the pr_fmt definitions needed in each file in the
>> integrity/ima directory?
> 
> btw Tushar and Lakshmi:
> 
> I am not formally submitting a patch here.
> 
> I was just making suggestions and please do
> with it as you think appropriate.

Joe - it's not clear to me what you are suggesting.
We'll move the #define for pr_fmt to integrity.h.

What's other changes are you proposing?

>>>   
>>>   out:
>>> +	if (ret < 0)
>>> +		pr_err("Process buffer measurement failed, result: %d\n",
>>> +			ret);
>>
>> There's no reason to split the statement like this.  The joined line
>> is less than 80 characters.

Agree.

thanks,
  -lakshmi