[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1803140124210.15778@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 01:28:57 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
linux-audit@...hat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: set TIF_AUDIT_SYSCALL only if audit filter has
been populated
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Yes...I wished I was in on the beginning of this discussion. Here's the
> > problem. We need all tasks auditable unless specifically dismissed as
> > uninteresting. This would be a task,never rule.
> >
> > The way we look at it, is if it boots with audit=1, then we know auditd
> > is expected to run at some point. So, we need all tasks to stay
> > auditable. If they weren't and auditd enabled auditing, then we'd need
> > to walk the whole proctable and stab TIF_AUDIT_SYSCALL into every
> > process in the system. It was decided that this is too ugly.
>
> When was that decided? That's what this patch does.
I'd like to see some more justification as well.
Namely, if I compare "setting TIF_AUDIT_SYSCALL for every process on a
need-to-be-so basis" to "we always go through the slow path and
pessimistically assume that audit is enabled and has reasonable ruleset
loaded", I have my own (different) opinion of what is too ugly.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists