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. Steve said, "We normally do not like to have fields that swing in and out ...", but said setting errno to 0 is fine. The 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
