Re: [PATCH] audit: set TIF_AUDIT_SYSCALL only if audit filter has been populated

Paul Moore
2018-03-07T23:43:46Z

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> Wow, this was a long time ago.
>>
>> Oh yeah; but it now resurfaced on our side, as we are of course receiving
>> a lot of requests with respect to making syscall performance great again
>> :)
>
> Ooof. I'm not sure I can handle making more things "great again" ;)
>
>>> From memory and a bit of email diving, there are two reasons.
>>>
>>> 1. The probably was partially solved (by Oleg, IIRC) by making auditctl
>>> -a task,never cause newly spawned tasks to not suck. Yes, it's a
>>> very partial solution. After considerable nagging, I got Fedora to
>>> default to -a task,never.
>>
>> Hm, right; that's a bit inconvenient, because it takes each and every
>> vendor having to realize this option, and put it in. Making kernel do the
>> right thing automatically sounds like a better option to me.
>
> This predates audit falling into my lap, but speaking generally I
> think it would be good if the kernel did The Right Thing, so long as
> it isn't too painful.
>
>>> 2. This patch, as is, may be a bit problematic. In particular, if one
>>> task changes the audit rules while another task is in the middle of
>>> the syscall, then it's too late to audit that syscall correctly.
>>> This could be seen as a bug or it could be seen as being just fine.
>>
>> I don't think this should be a problem, given the fact that the whole
>> timing/ordering is not predictable anyway due to scheduling.
>>
>> Paul, what do you think?
>
> I'm not overly concerned about the race condition between configuring
> the audit filters and syscalls that are currently in-flight; after all
> we have that now and "fixing" it would be pretty much impractical
> (impossible maybe?). Most serious audit users configure it during
> boot and let it run, frequent runtime changes are not common as far as
> I can tell.
>
> I just looked quickly at the patch and decided it isn't something I'm
> going to be able to carefully review in the time I've got left today,
> so it's going to have to wait until tomorrow and Friday ... however,
> speaking on general principle I don't have an objection to the ideas
> put forth here.
>
> Andy, if you've got any Reviewed-by/Tested-by/NACK/etc. you want to
> add, that would be good to have.

... and I just realized that linux-audit isn't on the To/CC line,
adding them now.

Link to the patch is below.

* https://marc.info/?t=152041887600003&r=1&w=2

--
paul moore