From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 476A7E732E7 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 16:06:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1695917185; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=bErwJWfez+Rd4UiqCr2TQapvYoDo/n+tz0YzlhvHKfY=; b=aINMbJZ+IcF+WrlbwK+ar1CwOD4mxYCN5amdfXhZTF40ZiETiNDAOVAsXLoATGj+RhTxF9 MFRh+V44OfYOW3aZkUuFlp3aoJTqDJAXBoJg/4HCv+dBC9+rD4eVkalgptJnmw8XLvEnQB syf11ck46wSxScjObtB9C/fIVW5gb7Q= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-668-F7zgA0jIPM2iXDAChkg_SA-1; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:06:21 -0400 X-MC-Unique: F7zgA0jIPM2iXDAChkg_SA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 423C280A08D; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 16:06:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com [10.30.29.100]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ECF12156711; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 16:06:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11ED81946594; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 16:06:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776711946587 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:53:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id 53625492B05; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:53:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from x2.localnet (unknown [10.22.34.142]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AF9949BB9A; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:53:27 +0000 (UTC) From: Steve Grubb To: Amjad Gabbar Subject: Re: Sycall Rules vs Watch Rules Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 11:53:26 -0400 Message-ID: <4866749.31r3eYUQgx@x2> Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: References: <8320136.T7Z3S40VBb@x2> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.10 X-BeenThere: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Audit Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Richard Guy Briggs , linux-audit@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Sender: "Linux-audit" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, September 21, 2023 4:02:49 PM EDT Amjad Gabbar wrote: > > The best solution would be a kernel modification so that there are no > > mismatched lists. > > I agree as well....This would be the cleanest solution. This would also > solve the userspace problem of maintaining different lists which can get > out of hand fairly quickly. After looking into this, a kernel patch would also not work well. It has to be arch specific > > I guess we can warn on that to rewrite in syscall notation. > > We certainly should. I think the user should know that there is a > performance cost associated with watches and we should explicitly mention > how it can be optimized in the manpages also. The reason being I am pretty > sure, numerous users/repos still do make use of the -w notation and we do > want to let them know the issue here. We also need to make quite a few > changes to the manpages also regarding this. Because, initially even I was > very confused when reading the man pages and seeing the actual > implementation of and results were not quite in sync. I have made the changes to the master and audit-3.1-maint branches. Please everyone concerned give them tests. The short of it is that if you use the '- w' notation for watches, it will remain the same and slower. If you use the syscall notation without "-F arch", you will get a warning that it cannot be optimized without adding "-Farch". If you add "-F arch", you will possibly need one for both arches which means doubling the rules. If you do not want to double the rules, you might place a syscall rule for any 32 system call (21-no32bit.rules). Or you can leave it as is and not care. The sample rules and all man pages have been updated. Please, let me know if this works out better. -Steve -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit