From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Grubb Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: set TIF_AUDIT_SYSCALL only if audit filter has been populated Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:04:38 -0400 Message-ID: <1768479.at3cVp0HA2@x2> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jiri Kosina Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Paul Moore , linux-audit@redhat.com, Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Oleg Nesterov , LKML List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:28:57 PM EDT Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > Yes...I wished I was in on the beginning of this discussion. Here's the > > > problem. We need all tasks auditable unless specifically dismissed as > > > uninteresting. This would be a task,never rule. > > > > > > The way we look at it, is if it boots with audit=1, then we know auditd > > > is expected to run at some point. So, we need all tasks to stay > > > auditable. If they weren't and auditd enabled auditing, then we'd need > > > to walk the whole proctable and stab TIF_AUDIT_SYSCALL into every > > > process in the system. It was decided that this is too ugly. > > > > When was that decided? That's what this patch does. > > I'd like to see some more justification as well. There was some discussion about removing the flag here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2007-October/msg00053.html -Steve > Namely, if I compare "setting TIF_AUDIT_SYSCALL for every process on a > need-to-be-so basis" to "we always go through the slow path and > pessimistically assume that audit is enabled and has reasonable ruleset > loaded", I have my own (different) opinion of what is too ugly.