[RFC PATCH v7 07/16] ipe: add auditing support
Randy Dunlap
rdunlap at infradead.org
Fri Oct 15 19:50:05 UTC 2021
On 10/15/21 12:25 PM, Deven Bowers wrote:
> 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.
Does checkpatch complain about what you have above
or did you add that help text to keep it from complaining?
> Documentation/process/* doesn't seem to have any guidance, nor
> Documentation/kbuild/* on whether it is safe to ignore that
> checkpatch warning.
Yeah, I don't think that we have any good guidance on that.
I would say that if the choice prompt provides good/adequate
help info, then each 'config' inside the choice block does not
need help text. OTOH, if the choice prompt has little/no help
info, then each 'config' under it should have some useful info.
I only looked in arch/x86/Kconfig, init/Kconfig, and lib/Kconfig.debug,
but you can see either help text method being used in those.
And then if the help text is adequate in either one of those
methods, I would just ignore the checkpatch complaints.
It's just a guidance tool.
HTH.
--
~Randy
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list