Re: [PATCH 1/2] integrity: Add errno field in audit message

On Friday, June 12, 2020 3:50:14 PM EDT Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 6/12/20 12:25 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > The idea is a good idea, but you're assuming that "result" is always > > errno. That was probably true originally, but isn't now. For > > example, ima_appraise_measurement() calls xattr_verify(), which > > compares the security.ima hash with the calculated file hash. On > > failure, it returns the result of memcmp(). Each and every code path > > will need to be checked. > > Good catch Mimi. > > Instead of "errno" should we just use "result" and log the value given > in the result parameter? That would likely collide with another field of the same name which is the operation's results. If it really is errno, the name is fine. It's generic enough that it can be reused on other events if that mattered.