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 v3 2/3] IMA: Add log statements for failure conditions.
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>, joe@perches.com,
        skhan@linuxfoundation.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     sashal@kernel.org, nramas@linux.microsoft.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 12 Feb 2020 09:47:03 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20200211231414.6640-3-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
References: <20200211231414.6640-1-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
         <20200211231414.6640-3-tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <1581518823.8515.49.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Tushar,

Please remove the period at the end of the  Subject line.

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.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@linux.microsoft.com>
> Reviewed-by: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>
> Suggested-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> ---
>  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?

Mimi