On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>> I still wonder, though, isn't there a way to use auditctl to get all >>>>> the seccomp messages you need? >>>> >>>> Not all of the seccomp actions are currently logged, that's one of the >>>> problems (and the biggest at the moment). >>> >>> Well... sort of. It all gets passed around, but the logic isn't very >>> obvious (or at least I always have to go look it up). >> >> Last time I checked SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW wasn't logged (as well as at >> least one other action, but I can't remember which off the top of my >> head)? > > Sure, but if you're using audit, you don't need RET_ALLOW to be logged > because you'll get a full syscall log entry. Logging RET_ALLOW is > redundant and provides no new information, it seems to me.
I only bring this up as it might be a way to help solve the SECCOMP_RET_AUDIT problem that Tyler mentioned. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com