Re: Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled?
On Oct 23, 2015 10:01 AM, "Kees Cook" <keescook(a)chromium.org> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto(a)amacapital.net> 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.
--Andy