Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc:     Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>,
        zohar@linux.ibm.com, rgb@redhat.com,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] integrity: Add result field in audit message
Date:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:43:26 -0400
Message-ID: <41911815.FMGa2a4QOz@x2>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhTmShh8ggdjLKf_ciL6fDt3ZH59BXaXMAgd8LFzqVj6rQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200613022633.3129-1-nramas@linux.microsoft.com> <CAHC9VhTmShh8ggdjLKf_ciL6fDt3ZH59BXaXMAgd8LFzqVj6rQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Monday, June 15, 2020 6:51:22 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:26 PM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
> 
> <nramas@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Result code is not included in the audit messages logged by
> > the integrity subsystem. Add "result" field in the audit messages
> > logged by the integrity subsystem and set the value to the result code
> > passed to integrity_audit_msg() in the "result" parameter.
> > 
> > Sample audit message:
> > 
> > [    6.284329] audit: type=1804 audit(1591756723.627:2): pid=1 uid=0
> > auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295 subj=kernel op=add_boot_aggregate
> > cause=alloc_entry comm="swapper/0" name="boot_aggregate" res=0
> > result=-12
> > 
> > [    8.085456] audit: type=1802 audit(1592005947.297:9): pid=1 uid=0
> > auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295 subj=system_u:system_r:init_t:s0
> > op=policy_update cause=completed comm="systemd" res=1 result=0
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>
> > Suggested-by: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > 
> >  security/integrity/integrity_audit.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> If we can't use "res=" to carry more than 0/1 then this seems reasonable.

Paul,

But we can't do this. The field name dictionary says this is used to convey 
success/fail. It is hard coded in the field interpretation table to look for 
0/1 and interpret that. Interpeting this field will now produce an error 
message. And "result" is a searchable field.

As I suggested a few emails back, let's just use errno or something not 
already taken in the dictionary. NACK.

-Steve

> Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> 
> > diff --git a/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c
> > b/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c index 5109173839cc..84002d3d5a95
> > 100644
> > --- a/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c
> > +++ b/security/integrity/integrity_audit.c
> > @@ -53,6 +53,6 @@ void integrity_audit_msg(int audit_msgno, struct inode
> > *inode,> 
> >                 audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, inode->i_sb->s_id);
> >                 audit_log_format(ab, " ino=%lu", inode->i_ino);
> >         
> >         }
> > 
> > -       audit_log_format(ab, " res=%d", !result);
> > +       audit_log_format(ab, " res=%d result=%d", !result, result);
> > 
> >         audit_log_end(ab);
> >  
> >  }
> > 
> > --
> > 2.27.0