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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1255013

Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled?

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@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 <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. :-)

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?

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
--
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