On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: > On Oct 23, 2015 10:01 AM, "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. > > Even if there is a nonzero signr, it could just be a program opting to > trap and emulate one of its own syscalls.
At present, that is a rare situation. Programs tend to be ptrace managed externally. Is there anything catching SIGSYS itself? -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- 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/