On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2017-10-13 21:11, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Richard Guy Briggs <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Since these are already standalone records (since the context passed to >> > audit_log_start() is NULL) this info is necessary. >> >> For the record, I don't have a problem with converting standalone >> records to syscall accompanied records if that makes sense (not all >> audit events can be attributed to a syscall). > > I don't either. I think I've fixed a couple like that in the past when > I thought it made sense. > >> Looking purely at the additional information mentioned in this thread, >> e.g. pid/uid/session/tty, it would make me believe that these records >> *could* be accompanied by a syscall (what is the point of recording >> that information if it isn't triggered by a syscall?). However, I >> can't say I've followed all the different fsnotify paths to know if >> that is the case ... it may be a mix, and perhaps that would be an >> argument for the logging this information in the accompanied SYSCALL >> record (it's only recorded when it is valid). > > Ok, fair enough. There are some records generated by actions that seem > indirect for watches and trees, but I suppose they are all ultimately > triggered by a user action... > > The issue I still get stuck with is how do we make sure we put in rules > to catch all the CONFIG_CHANGE instances without getting flooded by all > sorts of other stuff we don't want?
My opinion is that is a separate issue related to in-kernel filtering of audit records and shouldn't affect what we do here. >> > I'm fine with the field ordering. If that is not acceptable, I'd >> > recommend a new record type (AUDIT_TASK) to act as an aux record to this >> > record that lists this information in a standard order that can be used >> > as an aux record for all the standalone records that are missing this >> > information. >> >> As I just said in the GH issue, I'm not a big fan of the aux record at >> the moment (it seems too much of a dup with the SYSCALL record), but >> I'm not going to rule it out. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
