Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled?

On Oct 23, 2015 10:01 AM, "Kees Cook" <keescook(a)chromium.org&gt; wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto(a)amacapital.net&gt; wrote: > > I would argue that, if auditing is off, audit_seccomp shouldn't do > > anything. After all, unlike e.g. selinux, seccomp is not a systemwide > > policy, and seccomp signals might be ordinary behavior that's internal > > to the seccomp-using application. IOW, for people with audit compiled > > in and subscribed by journald but switched off, I think that the > > records shouldn't be emitted. > > > > If you agree, I can send the two-line patch. > > I think signr==0 states (which I would identify as "intended > behavior") don't need to be reported under any situation, but audit > folks wanted to keep it around. Even if there is a nonzero signr, it could just be a program opting to trap and emulate one of its own syscalls.