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

[Paul Moore]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:23 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.

Steve, what is the historical reason why we have both "res" and
"result" for indicating a boolean success/fail?  I'm just curious how
we ended up this way, and who may still be using "result".

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com