Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1255010

Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled?

Show all headers | View raw

On Friday, October 23, 2015 03:38:05 PM Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@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. :-)

-Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-10-23 18:20 +0200
  Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled? Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2015-10-23 19:10 +0200
    Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled? Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> - 2015-10-23 21:40 +0200
      Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled? Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com> - 2015-10-23 23:00 +0200
        Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled? Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> - 2015-10-23 23:00 +0200
          Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-10-23 23:10 +0200
    Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-10-23 23:10 +0200
      Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled? Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-10-23 23:30 +0200
        Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled? Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> - 2015-10-24 04:30 +0200
      Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled? Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2015-10-23 23:30 +0200
  Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled? Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> - 2015-10-23 21:20 +0200

csiph-web