On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 11:05 -0700, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote: > 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? You're overloading "res" to imply errno. Define a new parameter specifically for errno. Mimi
