On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Steve Grubb <sgr...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Friday, October 23, 2015 03:38:05 PM Paul Moore wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> >> wrote: >>> >> I would argue that, if auditing is off, audit_seccomp shouldn't do >>> >> anything. After all, unlike e.g. selinux, seccomp is not a systemwide >>> >> policy, and seccomp signals might be ordinary behavior that's internal >>> >> to the seccomp-using application. IOW, for people with audit compiled >>> >> in and subscribed by journald but switched off, I think that the >>> >> records shouldn't be emitted. >>> >> >>> >> If you agree, I can send the two-line patch. >>> > >>> > I think signr==0 states (which I would identify as "intended >>> > behavior") don't need to be reported under any situation, but audit >>> > folks wanted to keep it around. >>> >>> Wearing my libseccomp hat, I would like some logging when the seccomp >>> filter triggers a result other than allow. I don't care if this is >>> via audit or printk(), I just want some notification. If we go the >>> printk route and people really don't want to see anything in their >>> logs, I suppose we could always add a sysctl knob to turn off the >>> message completely (we would still need to do whatever audit records >>> are required, see below). >>> >>> Wearing my audit hat, I want to make sure we tick off all the right >>> boxes for the various certifications that people care about. Steve >>> Grubb has commented on what he needs in the past, although I'm not >>> sure it was on-list, so I'll ask him to repeat it here. >> >> I went back and reviewed my notes since this came up in the current Common >> Criteria evaluation. What we decided to do is treat syscall failures which >> failed due to seccomp the same as syscall failures caused by dropping >> capabilities. Both are opt-in DAC policies. That means we don't care. Do >> whatever you like. :-) > > Thanks Steve. > > Andy, is your objection that you don't want to see any seccomp > messages, or just seccomp audit records when audit is disabled? >
My objection is that people who have audit compiled in but disabled at runtime shouldn't have the overhead or the log noise from these messages. If people want the messages, then I think they should turn on audit (auditctl -e 1 or whatever). --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/