linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Begin auditing SECCOMP_RET

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

Date:   Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:31:55 -0500
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-audit@...hat.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Begin auditing SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO return actions

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>>>> I still wonder, though, isn't there a way to use auditctl to get all
>>>>> the seccomp messages you need?
>>>>
>>>> Not all of the seccomp actions are currently logged, that's one of the
>>>> problems (and the biggest at the moment).
>>>
>>> Well... sort of. It all gets passed around, but the logic isn't very
>>> obvious (or at least I always have to go look it up).
>>
>> Last time I checked SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW wasn't logged (as well as at
>> least one other action, but I can't remember which off the top of my
>> head)?
>
> Sure, but if you're using audit, you don't need RET_ALLOW to be logged
> because you'll get a full syscall log entry. Logging RET_ALLOW is
> redundant and provides no new information, it seems to me.

I only bring this up as it might be a way to help solve the
SECCOMP_RET_AUDIT problem that Tyler mentioned.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com