Re: [PATCH ghak10 v5 1/2] audit: Add functions to log time adjustments
On 2018-09-13 15:59, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 6:38 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2018 5:13:17 AM EDT Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:50 AM Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar(a)redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 02:00:00PM +0200, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> > > > This patch adds two auxiliary record types that will be used to
> > > > annotate
> > > > the adjtimex SYSCALL records with the NTP/timekeeping values that
have
> > > > been changed.
> > >
> > > It seems the "adjust" function intentionally logs also
calls/modes
> > > that don't actually change anything. Can you please explain it a bit
> > > in the message?
> > >
> > > NTP/PTP daemons typically don't read the adjtimex values in a normal
> > > operation and overwrite them on each update, even if they don't
> > > change. If the audit function checked that oldval != newval, the
> > > number of messages would be reduced and it might be easier to follow.
> >
> > We actually want to log any attempt to change a value, as even an
> > intention to set/change something could be a hint that the process is
> > trying to do something bad (see discussion at [1]).
>
> One of the problems is that these applications can flood the logs very
> quickly. An attempt to change is not needed unless it fails for permissions
> reasons. So, limiting to actual changes is probably a good thing.
Well, Richard seemed to "violently" agree with the opposite, so now I
don't know which way to go... Paul, you are the official tie-breaker
here, which do you prefer?
The circumstances have changed with new information being added. I
recall violently agreeing several iterations ago with your previous
assessment, which has also changed with this new information. I'd agree
with Steve that a flood of information about something that did not
change value could hide important information.
(BTW: The expression "to violoently agree with" is generally used in a
situation where two parties appear to have been arguing two different
sides of an issue and then realize they have much more in common than
initially apparent.)
> -Steve
>
> > There are valid
> > arguments both for and against this choice, but we have to pick one in
> > the end... Anyway, I should explain the reasoning in the commit
> > message better, right now it just states the fact without explanation
> > (in the second patch), thank you for pointing my attention to it.
> >
> > [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2018-July/msg00061.html
> >
> > --
> > Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com>
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com>
- RGB
--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com>
Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635