[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5936704.Br2IElDqrA@x2>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 08:33:14 -0500
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>
To: linux-audit@...hat.com
Cc: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Hundreds of null PATH records for *init_module syscall audit logs
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 11:00:27 AM EST Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 2017-03-07 10:41, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:39:54 -0500
> >
> > Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >From the output I've seen, it doesn't look particularly useful, but it
> > >
> > > was useful to finally see the source of those huge numbers of PATH
> > >
> > > records. Here's an fpaste:
> > > https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/
UpZoYuokojR0es1ayNdx5l5M1UNdIGYhy
> > > RLivL9gydE=/>
> > Those are the files for the module's trace events that are created.
> >
> > I'm still confused about what the issue is.
>
> The issue is the audit subsystem being overwhelmed by potentially
> useless information.
>
> The initial report was "there's a bunch of null PATH records, please
> make them go away", which was anywhere from 500 to 6000 records.
>
> Once I found out what they generally were and a way to enumerate the
> contents, we're reviewing that assessment to see if they really should
> be tossed, or listed out in full.
They should be tossed. They do not help in any way. What we need for an
auxiliary record is simply the module's name. That's all.
-Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists