From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Multiple Rule Logic
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:46:31 -0400
Message-ID: <200605161746.31757.sgrubb@redhat.com>
References: <446A326C.1070600@us.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <446A326C.1070600@us.ibm.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-audit@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
To: linux-audit@redhat.com
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

On Tuesday 16 May 2006 16:13, Michael C Thompson wrote:
> I was wondering what is to be expected when multiple rules exist that
> pertain to the same action.

You have to consider the lists that they are on. Each list is evaluated f=
rom=20
first to last. Any event that is created is sent to the exclude filter fo=
r=20
potential action.

> Examples:
> entry,always -S chmod =A0 - should see a record for chmod
> exclude,always -S all =A0 - should never see any sys calls
>
> Combined, should I expect a chmod record?

Yes. The exclude filter only removes records by message type.

exclude,always -F msgtype=3DSYSCALL

would be a valid use of it.

> =A0From my experiments with the current code, if any one rule instructs
> audit to log the action, auditd will log it (i.e. I'll see a chmod
> record). I'm wondering if this is the intended functionality.

I suspect we should have an error when you try to load a rule like in you=
=20
example.

-Steve