IMA: Add log statements for failure conditions.

Commit Message

Tushar Sugandhi Feb. 7, 2020, 7:53 p.m. UTC

process_buffer_measurement() and ima_alloc_key_entry()
functions do not have log messages for failure conditions.

This change adds log statements in the above functions. 

Signed-off-by: Tushar Sugandhi <[e-mail]>
Reviewed-by: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <[e-mail]>
---
 security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c       | 4 ++++
 security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c | 2 ++
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)

Comments

Mimi Zohar Feb. 9, 2020, 12:57 p.m. UTC | #1

Hi Tushar,

On Fri, 2020-02-07 at 11:53 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
> process_buffer_measurement() and ima_alloc_key_entry()
> functions do not have log messages for failure conditions.
> 
> This change adds log statements in the above functions. 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tushar Sugandhi <[e-mail]>
> Reviewed-by: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <[e-mail]>

The two patches you posted are related.  Please group them as a patch
set, making this patch 2/2.

In addition, as Shuah Khan suggested for the security/integrity/
directory, "there is an opportunity here to add #define pr_fmt(fmt)
KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt to integrity.h and get rid of duplicate
defines."  With Joe Perches patch (waiting for it to be re-posted),
are all the pr_fmt definitions needed in each file in the
integrity/ima directory?

> ---
>  security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c       | 4 ++++
>  security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c | 2 ++
>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> index 9fe949c6a530..afab796fb765 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> @@ -757,6 +757,10 @@ void process_buffer_measurement(const void *buf, int size,
>  		ima_free_template_entry(entry);
>  
>  out:
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		pr_err("Process buffer measurement failed, result: %d\n",
> +			ret);

There's no reason to split the statement like this.  The joined line
is less than 80 characters.

> +
>  	return;
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c
> index c87c72299191..2cc52f17ea81 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c
> @@ -90,6 +90,8 @@ static struct ima_key_entry *ima_alloc_key_entry(struct key *keyring,
>  
>  out:
>  	if (rc) {
> +		pr_err("Key entry allocation failed, result: %d\n",
> +			rc);

ditto

>  		ima_free_key_entry(entry);
>  		entry = NULL;
>  	}

thanks,

Mimi

Joe Perches Feb. 10, 2020, 2:46 a.m. UTC | #2

On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 07:57 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Hi Tushar,
> 
> On Fri, 2020-02-07 at 11:53 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
> > process_buffer_measurement() and ima_alloc_key_entry()
> > functions do not have log messages for failure conditions.
> > 
> > This change adds log statements in the above functions. 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tushar Sugandhi <[e-mail]>
> > Reviewed-by: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <[e-mail]>
> 
> The two patches you posted are related.  Please group them as a patch
> set, making this patch 2/2.
> 
> In addition, as Shuah Khan suggested for the security/integrity/
> directory, "there is an opportunity here to add #define pr_fmt(fmt)
> KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt to integrity.h and get rid of duplicate
> defines."  With Joe Perches patch (waiting for it to be re-posted),
> are all the pr_fmt definitions needed in each file in the
> integrity/ima directory?

btw Tushar and Lakshmi:

I am not formally submitting a patch here.

I was just making suggestions and please do
with it as you think appropriate.

and welcome, cheers, Joe

> > ---
> >  security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c       | 4 ++++
> >  security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c | 2 ++
> >  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> > index 9fe949c6a530..afab796fb765 100644
> > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
> > @@ -757,6 +757,10 @@ void process_buffer_measurement(const void *buf, int size,
> >  		ima_free_template_entry(entry);
> >  
> >  out:
> > +	if (ret < 0)
> > +		pr_err("Process buffer measurement failed, result: %d\n",
> > +			ret);
> 
> There's no reason to split the statement like this.  The joined line
> is less than 80 characters.
> 
> > +
> >  	return;
> >  }
> >  
> > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c
> > index c87c72299191..2cc52f17ea81 100644
> > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c
> > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c
> > @@ -90,6 +90,8 @@ static struct ima_key_entry *ima_alloc_key_entry(struct key *keyring,
> >  
> >  out:
> >  	if (rc) {
> > +		pr_err("Key entry allocation failed, result: %d\n",
> > +			rc);
> 
> ditto
> 
> >  		ima_free_key_entry(entry);
> >  		entry = NULL;
> >  	}
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Mimi
>

Lakshmi Ramasubramanian Feb. 10, 2020, 4:40 p.m. UTC | #3

On 2/9/20 6:46 PM, Joe Perches wrote:

>>
>> In addition, as Shuah Khan suggested for the security/integrity/
>> directory, "there is an opportunity here to add #define pr_fmt(fmt)
>> KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt to integrity.h and get rid of duplicate
>> defines."  

Good point - we'll make that change.

With Joe Perches patch (waiting for it to be re-posted),
>> are all the pr_fmt definitions needed in each file in the
>> integrity/ima directory?
> 
> btw Tushar and Lakshmi:
> 
> I am not formally submitting a patch here.
> 
> I was just making suggestions and please do
> with it as you think appropriate.

Joe - it's not clear to me what you are suggesting.
We'll move the #define for pr_fmt to integrity.h.

What's other changes are you proposing?

>>>   
>>>   out:
>>> +	if (ret < 0)
>>> +		pr_err("Process buffer measurement failed, result: %d\n",
>>> +			ret);
>>
>> There's no reason to split the statement like this.  The joined line
>> is less than 80 characters.

Agree.

thanks,
  -lakshmi

Joe Perches Feb. 10, 2020, 4:50 p.m. UTC | #4

On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 08:40 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 2/9/20 6:46 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> 
> > > In addition, as Shuah Khan suggested for the security/integrity/
> > > directory, "there is an opportunity here to add #define pr_fmt(fmt)
> > > KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt to integrity.h and get rid of duplicate
> > > defines."  
> 
> Good point - we'll make that change.
> 
> With Joe Perches patch (waiting for it to be re-posted),
> > > are all the pr_fmt definitions needed in each file in the
> > > integrity/ima directory?
> > 
> > btw Tushar and Lakshmi:
> > 
> > I am not formally submitting a patch here.
> > 
> > I was just making suggestions and please do
> > with it as you think appropriate.
> 
> Joe - it's not clear to me what you are suggesting.
> We'll move the #define for pr_fmt to integrity.h.
> 
> What's other changes are you proposing?

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[e-mail]/

Tushar Sugandhi Feb. 10, 2020, 9:42 p.m. UTC | #5

On 2020-02-10 8:50 a.m., Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 08:40 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> On 2/9/20 6:46 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>
>>>> In addition, as Shuah Khan suggested for the security/integrity/
>>>> directory, "there is an opportunity here to add #define pr_fmt(fmt)
>>>> KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt to integrity.h and get rid of duplicate
>>>> defines."
>>
>> Good point - we'll make that change.
>>
>> With Joe Perches patch (waiting for it to be re-posted),
>>>> are all the pr_fmt definitions needed in each file in the
>>>> integrity/ima directory?
>>>
>>> btw Tushar and Lakshmi:
>>>
>>> I am not formally submitting a patch here.
>>>
>>> I was just making suggestions and please do
>>> with it as you think appropriate.
>>
>> Joe - it's not clear to me what you are suggesting.
>> We'll move the #define for pr_fmt to integrity.h.
>>
>> What's other changes are you proposing?
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[e-mail]/
> 
Thanks Joe.

Joe, Shuah:

Could one of you please clarify if the changes proposed in the above URL 
will be part of Shuah's future patchset?

Or should I include those in my patchset? I am referring to the 
following snippet in security/integrity/integrity.h.


+#ifdef pr_fmt
+#undef pr_fmt
+#endif
+
+#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " KBUILD_BASENAME ": " fmt
+

If I add the above in my patchset, I believe I should remove #defines 
for pr_fmt in the .c files under /security/integrity? (except the below one)
latform_certs/efi_parser.c:#define pr_fmt(fmt) "EFI: "fmt

Please let me know.

Thanks,
Tushar

Mimi Zohar Feb. 10, 2020, 9:46 p.m. UTC | #6

Hi Tushar,

On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:33 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
> On 2020-02-10 8:50 a.m., Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 08:40 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >> On 2/9/20 6:46 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> >>
> >>>> In addition, as Shuah Khan suggested for the security/integrity/
> >>>> directory, "there is an opportunity here to add #define pr_fmt(fmt)
> >>>> KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt to integrity.h and get rid of duplicate
> >>>> defines."
> >> Good point - we'll make that change.
> >>
> >> With Joe Perches patch (waiting for it to be re-posted),
> >>>> are all the pr_fmt definitions needed in each file in the
> >>>> integrity/ima directory?
> >>> btw Tushar and Lakshmi:
> >>>
> >>> I am not formally submitting a patch here.
> >>>
> >>> I was just making suggestions and please do
> >>> with it as you think appropriate.
> >> Joe - it's not clear to me what you are suggesting.
> >> We'll move the #define for pr_fmt to integrity.h.
> >>
> >> What's other changes are you proposing?
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[e-mail]/
> >
> Thanks Joe.
> 
> Joe, Shuah:
> 
> Could one of you please clarify if the changes proposed in the above URL 
> will be part of Shuah's future patchset?
> 
> Or should I include those in my patchset? I am referring to the 
> following snippet in security/integrity/integrity.h.

Joe is saying that he made some suggestions, which Shuah commented on,
but has no intention of posting a formal patch.  The end result of
that discussion is to define pr_fmt once in integrity/integrity.h and
remove any duplication in the integrity/ files.

I'd appreciate your including that change in this patch set, and if
needed a similar one in ima/ima.h.

thanks,

Mimi

Tushar Sugandhi Feb. 10, 2020, 10:19 p.m. UTC | #7

Thanks Mimi.

On 2020-02-10 1:46 p.m., Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Hi Tushar,
> 
> On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:33 -0800, Tushar Sugandhi wrote:
>> On 2020-02-10 8:50 a.m., Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 08:40 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>>> On 2/9/20 6:46 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> In addition, as Shuah Khan suggested for the security/integrity/
>>>>>> directory, "there is an opportunity here to add #define pr_fmt(fmt)
>>>>>> KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt to integrity.h and get rid of duplicate
>>>>>> defines."
>>>> Good point - we'll make that change.
>>>>
>>>> With Joe Perches patch (waiting for it to be re-posted),
>>>>>> are all the pr_fmt definitions needed in each file in the
>>>>>> integrity/ima directory?
>>>>> btw Tushar and Lakshmi:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not formally submitting a patch here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was just making suggestions and please do
>>>>> with it as you think appropriate.
>>>> Joe - it's not clear to me what you are suggesting.
>>>> We'll move the #define for pr_fmt to integrity.h.
>>>>
>>>> What's other changes are you proposing?
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[e-mail]/
>>>
>> Thanks Joe.
>>
>> Joe, Shuah:
>>
>> Could one of you please clarify if the changes proposed in the above URL
>> will be part of Shuah's future patchset?
>>
>> Or should I include those in my patchset? I am referring to the
>> following snippet in security/integrity/integrity.h.
> 
> Joe is saying that he made some suggestions, which Shuah commented on,
> but has no intention of posting a formal patch.  The end result of
> that discussion is to define pr_fmt once in integrity/integrity.h and
> remove any duplication in the integrity/ files.
> 
> I'd appreciate your including that change in this patch set, and if
> needed a similar one in ima/ima.h.
I will add the proposed change to pr_fmt to this patchset.
I will also check if a similar change is needed in ima/ima.h.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Mimi
>

Patch

diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
index 9fe949c6a530..afab796fb765 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
@@ -757,6 +757,10 @@  void process_buffer_measurement(const void *buf, int size,
 		ima_free_template_entry(entry);
 
 out:
+	if (ret < 0)
+		pr_err("Process buffer measurement failed, result: %d\n",
+			ret);
+
 	return;
 }
 
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c
index c87c72299191..2cc52f17ea81 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_queue_keys.c
@@ -90,6 +90,8 @@  static struct ima_key_entry *ima_alloc_key_entry(struct key *keyring,
 
 out:
 	if (rc) {
+		pr_err("Key entry allocation failed, result: %d\n",
+			rc);
 		ima_free_key_entry(entry);
 		entry = NULL;
 	}