Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled?

From	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled?
Date	2015-10-23 23:30 +0200
Message-ID	<qmS4p-54s-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qmNeq-6xZ-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qmO0O-7In-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qmRL4-4HE-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <qmS4p-54s-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 2015 10:01 AM, "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.
>>
>> 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?
>

I wrote one once.  I also wrote a whole set of patches for libseccomp
to make it easier that never went anywhere -- I should dust those off
and package them into their own library.

--Andy
--
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/

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