[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrW3FS5aOmfp7X70RuXgCO-XfXHZ2G8sEpyOKV=pn1EzCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 10:05:58 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-audit@...hat.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] audit: Turn off TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT when there are no rules
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 10, 2014 09:29:19 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Grr. Why is all this crap tied up with syscall auditing anyway? ISTM
>> it would have been a lot nicer if audit calls just immediately emitted
>> audit records, completely independently of the syscall machinery.
>
> Because the majority of people needing audit need syscall records for it to
> make any sense. The auxiliary records generally report on the object of the
> syscall. We still require information about who was doing something, what they
> were doing, and what the result was.
>
> Even if you just get the AVC's, you still don't know what happened. If you get
> a deny record, was it really denied? The system could have been in permissive
> mode and the syscall succeeded. You only get the real decision when you have
> syscall records.
>
Fair enough.
I'll see if I can turn this into something more workable.
--Andy
--
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