On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Jiri Kosina <ji...@kernel.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> Wow, this was a long time ago. >> >> Oh yeah; but it now resurfaced on our side, as we are of course receiving >> a lot of requests with respect to making syscall performance great again >> :) > > Ooof. I'm not sure I can handle making more things "great again" ;) > >>> From memory and a bit of email diving, there are two reasons. >>> >>> 1. The probably was partially solved (by Oleg, IIRC) by making auditctl >>> -a task,never cause newly spawned tasks to not suck. Yes, it's a >>> very partial solution. After considerable nagging, I got Fedora to >>> default to -a task,never. >> >> Hm, right; that's a bit inconvenient, because it takes each and every >> vendor having to realize this option, and put it in. Making kernel do the >> right thing automatically sounds like a better option to me. > > This predates audit falling into my lap, but speaking generally I > think it would be good if the kernel did The Right Thing, so long as > it isn't too painful. > >>> 2. This patch, as is, may be a bit problematic. In particular, if one >>> task changes the audit rules while another task is in the middle of >>> the syscall, then it's too late to audit that syscall correctly. >>> This could be seen as a bug or it could be seen as being just fine. >> >> I don't think this should be a problem, given the fact that the whole >> timing/ordering is not predictable anyway due to scheduling. >> >> Paul, what do you think? > > I'm not overly concerned about the race condition between configuring > the audit filters and syscalls that are currently in-flight; after all > we have that now and "fixing" it would be pretty much impractical > (impossible maybe?). Most serious audit users configure it during > boot and let it run, frequent runtime changes are not common as far as > I can tell. > > I just looked quickly at the patch and decided it isn't something I'm > going to be able to carefully review in the time I've got left today, > so it's going to have to wait until tomorrow and Friday ... however, > speaking on general principle I don't have an objection to the ideas > put forth here. > > Andy, if you've got any Reviewed-by/Tested-by/NACK/etc. you want to > add, that would be good to have.
... and I just realized that linux-audit isn't on the To/CC line, adding them now. Link to the patch is below. * https://marc.info/?t=152041887600003&r=1&w=2 -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list Linuxemail@example.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit