From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
linux-audit@redhat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: set TIF_AUDIT_SYSCALL only if audit filter has been populated
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:04:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1768479.at3cVp0HA2@x2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1803140124210.15778@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-19 17:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-07 10:32 [PATCH] audit: set TIF_AUDIT_SYSCALL only if audit filter has been populated Jiri Kosina
2018-03-07 16:40 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-03-07 16:48 ` Jiri Kosina
2018-03-07 23:41 ` Paul Moore
2018-03-07 23:43 ` Paul Moore
2018-03-08 9:12 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2018-03-08 14:30 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-03-08 16:03 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2018-03-10 10:15 ` Steve Grubb
2018-03-14 0:22 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-03-14 0:28 ` Jiri Kosina
2018-03-14 0:35 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-03-19 17:15 ` Steve Grubb
2018-03-19 17:04 ` Steve Grubb [this message]
2018-03-08 1:06 ` Andy Lutomirski
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=1768479.at3cVp0HA2@x2 \
--to=sgrubb@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.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