Re: [PATCH 2/2] integrity: Add errno field in audit message

[Lakshmi Ramasubramanian]

On 6/18/20 10:41 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:

> For the reasons that I mentioned previously, unless others are willing
> to add their Reviewed-by tag not for the audit aspect in particular,
> but IMA itself, I'm not comfortable making this change all at once.
>
> Previously I suggested making the existing integrity_audit_msg() a
> wrapper for a new function with errno. ÂSteve said, "We normally do
> not like to have fields that swing in and out ...", but said setting
> errno to 0 is fine. ÂThe original integrity_audit_msg() function would
> call the new function with errno set to 0.

If the original integrity_audit_msg() always calls the new function with 
errno set to 0, there would be audit messages where "res" field is set 
to "0" (fail) because "result" was non-zero, but errno set to "0" 
(success). Wouldn't this be confusing?

In PATCH 1/2 I've made changes to make the "result" parameter to 
integrity_audit_msg() consistent - i.e., it is always an error code (0 
for success and a negative value for error). Would that address your 
concerns?

thanks,
 -lakshmi