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
prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox