linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Improved seccomp logging

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]

Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLRadtyYbJO+GAamK5tz9YVegF7yZtY03dxfcevicwK3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:17:21 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.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>,
        John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Improved seccomp logging

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com> wrote:
> This patch set is the fourth revision of the following two previously
> submitted patch sets:
>
> v1: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1483375990-14948-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com
> v1: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1483377999-15019-2-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com
>
> v2: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1486100262-32391-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com
>
> v3: Same patches as v4 but I copied and pasted an invalid address for the
>     linux-api list when submitting the set.
>
> The patch set aims to address some known deficiencies in seccomp's current
> logging capabilities:
>
>   1. Inability to log all filter actions.
>   2. Inability to selectively enable filtering; e.g. devs want noisy logging,
>      users want relative quiet.
>   3. Consistent behavior with audit enabled and disabled.
>   4. Inability to easily develop a filter due to the lack of a
>      permissive/complain mode.

I'm pretty happy with the series! If you can address the minor nits I
pointed out and send a v4, I'll get it queued for -next. It won't make
v4.11; we're almost at the merge window and I want to make sure this
gets as much testing time as possible. It should be good for v4.12,
though.

Thanks for the series; I know a lot of people have wanted the functionality. :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security