On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:06:12PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 9:48 PM CGEL <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry could anybody give a hand to solve this? It works well on x86_64 and > > arm64. > > I have no alpha environment and not familiar to this arch, much thanks! > > Regardless of if this is fixed, I'm not convinced this is something we > want to merge. After all, a process executed a syscall and we should > process it like any other; just because it happens to be an > unrecognized syscall on a particular kernel build doesn't mean it > isn't security relevant (probing for specific syscall numbers may be a > useful attack fingerprint). > Thanks for your reply.
But syscall number less than 0 is even invalid for auditctl. So we will never hit this kind of audit rule. And invalid syscall number will always cause failure early in syscall handle. sh-4.2# auditctl -a always,exit -F arch=b64 -S -1 Syscall name unknown: -1 > -- > paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list [email protected] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
