On 10/15/21 12:25 PM, Deven Bowers wrote:
On 10/13/2021 3:54 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
Hi,Oof. That's embarrassing. Sorry, I'll fix this for v8.
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.
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.