[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6663120.dfAPuuBWIr@x2>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:12:21 -0500
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
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 Monday, February 10, 2014 11:01:36 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> And I still think this needs more changes. Once again, I do not think
> >> that, say, __audit_log_bprm_fcaps() should populate context->aux if
> >> !TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT, this list can grow indefinitely. Or
> >> __audit_signal_info()...
> >>
> >> Perhaps __audit_syscall_exit() should also set context->dummy?
> >
> > That would work.
> >
> > I'm still torn between trying to make it possible for things like
> > __audit_log_bprm_fcaps to start a syscall audit record in the middle
> > of a syscall or to just try to tighten up the current approach to the
> > point where it will work correctly.
>
> This is worse than I thought. Things like signal auditing can enter
> the audit system from outside of a syscall. I don't think there's
> currently any way to tell whether you're in a syscall (when
> TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT is clear) so getting this to work right would
> require arch help.
>
> I'll ask what people on the Fedora list think about just changing the
> default to -t task,never.
I can't recall ever seeing the task filter used in real life. But assuming you
wanted to audit no tasks, what is the difference between using that filter and
never setting audit_enable in the first place?
-Steve
--
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