[RFC PATCH v7 07/16] ipe: add auditing support
Deven Bowers
deven.desai at linux.microsoft.com
Fri Oct 15 19:25:45 UTC 2021
On 10/13/2021 3:54 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/13/21 12:06 PM, deven.desai at linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>> diff --git a/security/ipe/Kconfig b/security/ipe/Kconfig
>> index c4503083e92d..ef556b66e674 100644
>> --- a/security/ipe/Kconfig
>> +++ b/security/ipe/Kconfig
>> @@ -17,3 +17,55 @@ menuconfig SECURITY_IPE
>> requirements on the fly.
>> If unsure, answer N.
>> +
>> +if SECURITY_IPE
>> +
>> +choice
>> + prompt "Hash algorithm used in auditing policies"
>> + default IPE_AUDIT_HASH_SHA1
>> + depends on AUDIT
>> + help
>> + Specify the hash algorithm used when auditing policies.
>> + The hash is used to uniquely identify a policy from other
>> + policies on the system.
>> +
>> + If unsure, leave default.
>> +
>> + config IPE_AUDIT_HASH_SHA1
>> + bool "sha1"
>> + depends on CRYPTO_SHA1
>> + help
>> + Use the SHA128 algorithm to hash policies
>> + in the audit records.
>> +
>> + config IPE_AUDIT_HASH_SHA256
>> + bool "sha256"
>> + depends on CRYPTO_SHA256
>> + help
>> + Use the SHA256 algorithm to hash policies
>> + in the audit records.
>> +
>> + config IPE_AUDIT_HASH_SHA384
>> + bool "sha384"
>> + depends on CRYPTO_SHA512
>> + help
>> + Use the SHA384 algorithm to hash policies
>> + in the audit records
>> +
>> + config IPE_AUDIT_HASH_SHA512
>> + bool "sha512"
>> + depends on CRYPTO_SHA512
>> + help
>> + Use the SHA512 algorithm to hash policies
>> + in the audit records
>> +endchoice
>> +
>> +config IPE_AUDIT_HASH_ALG
>> + string
>> + depends on AUDIT
>> + default "sha1" if IPE_AUDIT_HASH_SHA1
>> + default "sha256" if IPE_AUDIT_HASH_SHA256
>> + default "sha384" if IPE_AUDIT_HASH_SHA384
>> + default "sha512" if IPE_AUDIT_HASH_SHA512
>> +
>> +endif
>
> Please follow coding-style for Kconfig files:
>
> (from Documentation/process/coding-style.rst, section 10):
>
> For all of the Kconfig* configuration files throughout the source tree,
> the indentation is somewhat different. Lines under a ``config``
> definition
> are indented with one tab, while help text is indented an additional two
> spaces.
>
Oof. That's embarrassing. Sorry, I'll fix this for v8.
While I'm at it, is the help text required for choice configs?
checkpatch --strict complains with a warning without them, but
I see other places in the tree where help text is omitted for
these configs attached to a choice.
Documentation/process/* doesn't seem to have any guidance, nor
Documentation/kbuild/* on whether it is safe to ignore that
checkpatch warning.
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list