[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4fb6def1-a1d9-8af0-394c-f92224884d18@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:36:49 +0000
From: "Sverdlin, Alexander (Nokia - DE/Ulm)" <alexander.sverdlin@...ia.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
CC: Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>,
"linux-audit@...hat.com" <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: always enable syscall auditing when supported and
audit is enabled
Hello Paul,
On 28/01/2019 15:19, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> time also enables syscall auditing; this patch simplifies the Kconfig
>>> menus by removing the option to disable syscall auditing when audit
>>> is selected and the target arch supports it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
>> this patch is responsible for massive performance degradation for those
>> who used only CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR.
>>
>> And the numbers are, take the following test for instance:
>>
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null count=2M
>>
>> ARM64: 500MB/s -> 350MB/s
>> ARM: 400MB/s -> 300MB/s
> Hi there.
>
> Out of curiosity, what kernel/distribution are you running, or is this
> a custom kernel compile? Can you also share the output of 'auditctl
This test was carried out with Linux 4.9. Custom built.
> -l' from your system? The general approach taken by everyone to
> turn-off the per-syscall audit overhead is to add the "-a never,task"
> rule to their audit configuration:
>
> # auditctl -a never,task
>
> If you are using Fedora/CentOS/RHEL, or a similarly configured system,
This is an embedded distribution. We are not using auditctl or any other
audit-related user-space packages.
> you can find this configuration in the /etc/audit/audit.rules file (be
> warned, that file is automatically generated based on
> /etc/audit/rules.d).
I suppose in this case rule list must be empty. Is there a way to check
this without extra user-space packages?
--
Best regards,
Alexander Sverdlin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists