On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 1:15:55 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 2020-06-09 10:00, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 6/9/20 9:43 AM, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > The number in parenthesis is the error code (such as ENOMEM, EINVAL,
> > > etc.) IMA uses this format for reporting TPM errors in one of the
> > > audit
> > > messages (In ima_add_template_entry()). I followed the same pattern.
> > >
> > > Would it be better if the value for "cause" is formatted as
> > >
> > > cause=hashing_error_-22
> > >
> > > cause=alloc_entry_-12
> >
> > Neither fit the name=value style that all other events follow. What
> > would fit the style is something like this:
> >
> > cause=hashing_error errno=-22
> > cause=alloc_entry errno=-12
> >
> > Would this be OK? Also, errno is only to illustrate. You can name it
> > something else as long as there are no use case collisions with our
> > dictionary of field names.
> >
> >
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-documentation/blob/master/specs/fi
> > elds/ field-dictionary.csv
>
> I am fine with this.
Thanks, this makes interpreting it a couple lines of code.
> "errno" is currently not listed in the dictionary of
audit message field
> names (Thanks for the pointer to this one Steve)
It can be easily added.
> Mimi - please let me know if you have any concerns with adding
the
> "result" code in "errno" field in integrity_audit_msg().
If it is added, it should be appended to the end of the record since it
is an existing record format, then in the case of res=1, errno= should
still be present (not swing in and out) and just contain zero. (Or
another value if there is a non-fatal warning?)
This is not a searchable field, so it can go anywhere. If it is searchable,
ausearch expects ordering of other searchable fields.
-Steve