All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael C Thompson <thompsmc@us.ibm.com>
To: Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@hp.com>
Cc: Linux Audit <linux-audit@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: What is expected: exclude action on the never list?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 17:43:09 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <447CCA7D.9090505@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <447CC9CE.90303@hp.com>

Linda Knippers wrote:
> Michael C Thompson wrote:
>> Linda Knippers wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Grubb wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 30 May 2006 16:45, Michael C Thompson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would read the second rule as saying "do not exclude messages of type
>>>>> SYSCALL". Is this a correct interpretation of the rule?
>>>>
>>>> That sounds reasonable, but I don't think that's what the kernel
>>>> does. Maybe it should be corrected. I think its a 1 or 2 liner.
>>>
>>> According to the manpage, I'd say the kernel is behaving as expected.
>>>
>>> "Never" means never generate an audit record and "exclude" means even if
>>> one was generated, it should be excluded.  The two options together are
>>> somewhat redundant but I don't think "never" was intended to mean "never
>>> do what the previous option just said to do", at least not according to
>>> the manpage.
>>
>> Agreed. The wording is... confusing when compared to the rule. I guess
>> the real question which needs to be answered is "Do we need to be able
>> to force the capture of a rule?"... since audit by default does not
>> audit anything, and you have to explicitly add filters, I would say "no"
>> to this question.
>>
>> That said, I think we should leave "exclude,always" as is, and either
>> change the man page to say something about "exclude,never" being the
>> same as "exclude,always", _or_ change the userspace to indicate that
>> "exclude,never" doesn't make sense.
> 
> I'm not sure "always" makes sense either, at least not as described in
> the manpage since it says to always write out record at syscall exit
> time.

So it sounds like the man page needs to be reworded... if I think of 
anything clear and enlightening, I will pass it on.

I think that the "exclude,always" construct (outside of what the man 
page says) has inherent meaning, so I would leave it as is. Would you 
agree that changing the "exclude,never" to be invalidated in userspace 
makes sense?

Mike

      reply	other threads:[~2006-05-30 22:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-05-30 20:45 What is expected: exclude action on the never list? Michael C Thompson
2006-05-30 21:12 ` Steve Grubb
2006-05-30 21:17   ` Linda Knippers
2006-05-30 22:27     ` Michael C Thompson
2006-05-30 22:40       ` Linda Knippers
2006-05-30 22:43         ` Michael C Thompson [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=447CCA7D.9090505@us.ibm.com \
    --to=thompsmc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linda.knippers@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.