linux-kernel - Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <15097a914e0.2852.85c95baa4474aabc7814e68940a78392@paul-moore.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:24:12 -0400
From:	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC:	Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>, <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled?

On October 23, 2015 5:30:45 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>> On Oct 23, 2015 10:01 AM, "Kees Cook" <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>>> > I would argue that, if auditing is off, audit_seccomp shouldn't do
>>>> > anything.  After all, unlike e.g. selinux, seccomp is not a systemwide
>>>> > policy, and seccomp signals might be ordinary behavior that's internal
>>>> > to the seccomp-using application.  IOW, for people with audit compiled
>>>> > in and subscribed by journald but switched off, I think that the
>>>> > records shouldn't be emitted.
>>>> >
>>>> > If you agree, I can send the two-line patch.
>>>>
>>>> I think signr==0 states (which I would identify as "intended
>>>> behavior") don't need to be reported under any situation, but audit
>>>> folks wanted to keep it around.
>>>
>>> Even if there is a nonzero signr, it could just be a program opting to
>>> trap and emulate one of its own syscalls.
>>
>> At present, that is a rare situation. Programs tend to be ptrace
>> managed externally. Is there anything catching SIGSYS itself?
>>
>
> I wrote one once.  I also wrote a whole set of patches for libseccomp
> to make it easier that never went anywhere -- I should dust those off
> and package them into their own library.

It has been a while since we discussed those patches, but if I remember 
correctly it was going to be very difficult to do it in an arch agnostic 
way and that was a concern.

--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com


--
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/