lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CALCETrX+crm9ubMqimSdzfALEniefKcAWZz3AhZ7zioy7dVKzQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 18:51:56 -0800 From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-audit@...hat.com, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Why is syscall auditing on with no rules? On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote: > On a stock Fedora installation: > > $ sudo auditctl -l > No rules > > Nonetheless TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT is set and the __audit_syscall_entry and > __audit_syscall_exit account for >20% of syscall overhead according to > perf. > > This sucks. Unless I'm missing something, syscall auditing is *off*. > > How hard would it be to arrange for TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT to be cleared > when there are no syscall rules? > > (This is extra bad in kernels before 3.13, where the clear call for > TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT was completely missing.) The current code seems to have really odd effects. For example, processes that are created before the very first auditctl -e 1 (or auditd) invocation will never be subject to syscall auditing. But auditctl -e 1; auditctl -e 0 will cause all subsequently started processes to have audit contexts allocated and therefore to be subject to syscall auditing. I doubt that this behavior is considered desirable. --Andy > > --Andy -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists