[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7769390.PcQeGc7e00@x2>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:53:39 -0500
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
To: linux-audit@...hat.com
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Begin auditing SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO return actions
On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:44:41 PM EST Kees Cook wrote:
> >> That doesn't fully solve #3 for me. In Ubuntu (and I think Debian), we
> >> build with CONFIG_AUDIT enabled but don't ship auditd by default so
> >> audit_enabled is false. In that default configuration, we still want
> >> seccomp audit messages to be printk'ed. I'll need to figure out how to
> >> cleanly allow opting into seccomp audit messages when CONFIG_AUDIT is
> >> enabled and audit_enabled is false.
> >
> > Heh, so you've got audit built into the kernel but you're not using
> > it; that sounds "fun".
> >
> > Anyway, I think the logging consolidation could still help you, if for
> > no other reason than everything is going through the same function at
> > that point. We could do some other stuff there to handle the case
> > where audit is compiled, but auditd is not running ... we already have
> > some code in place to handle that for other reasons, check
> > kernel/audit.c for more information. I'd still work on the other
> > stuff first and then we can add this in at the end of the patchset.
>
> Yeah, I think the "should I report it?" threshold sysctl could just
> check if audit is enabled...
>
> I still wonder, though, isn't there a way to use auditctl to get all
> the seccomp messages you need?
If you do "auditctl -e 1" then auditing will be enabled and it will send
events to syslog if the audit daemon is not running.
-Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists