On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 1:05 PM Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 9:50 AM Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 2019-09-23 23:01, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:00 PM Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com> > > > wrote: > > > > On 2019-09-23 12:14, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:50 AM Dave Jones <da...@codemonkey.org.uk> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some hosts that are constantly spewing audit messages like > > > > > > so: > > > > > > > > > > > > [46897.591182] audit: type=1333 audit(1569250288.663:220): > > > > > > op=offset old=2543677901372 new=2980866217213 > > > > > > [46897.591184] audit: type=1333 audit(1569250288.663:221): op=freq > > > > > > old=-2443166611284 new=-2436281764244 > > > > > > > > Odd. It appears these two above should have the same serial number and > > > > should be accompanied by a syscall record. It appears that it has no > > > > context to update to connect the two records. Is it possible it is not > > > > being called in a task context? If that were the case though, I'd > > > > expect audit_dummy_context() to return 1... > > > > > > Yeah, I'm a little confused with these messages too. As you pointed > > > out, the different serial numbers imply that the audit_context is NULL > > > and if the audit_context is NULL I would have expected it to fail the > > > audit_dummy_context() check in audit_ntp_log(). I'm looking at this > > > with tired eyes at the moment, so I'm likely missing something, but I > > > just don't see it right now ... > > > > > > What is even more confusing is that I don't see this issue on my test > > > systems. > > > > > > > Checking audit_enabled should not be necessary but might fix the > > > > problem, but still not explain why we're getting these records. > > > > > > I'd like to understand why this is happening before we start changing the > > > code. > > > > Absolutely. > > > > This looks like a similar issue to the AUDIT_NETFILTER_CFG issue where > > we get a lone record unconnected to a syscall when one of the netfilter > > table initialization (ipv4 filter) is linked into the kernel rather than > > compiled as a module, so it is run in kernel context at boot rather than > > in user context as a module load later. This is why I ask if it is > > being run by a kernel thread rather than a user task, perhaps using a > > syscall function call internally. > > I don't see where in the code that could happen, but I agree that it > looks like it; maybe I'm just missing a code path somewhere. > > Is anyone else seeing these records? Granted my audit test systems > are running chrony, not ntp, but the syscalls/behaviors should be > similar and I can't seem to recreate this.
Dave, can you provide any additional information on the systems where you are seeing this? Kernel, userspace, distro, relevant configs, etc. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com