Re: [RFC PATCH v7 07/16] ipe: add auditing support

[Randy Dunlap]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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