On Thursday, September 21, 2023 4:02:49 PM EDT Amjad Gabbar wrote: > > The best solution would be a kernel modification so that there are no > > mismatched lists. > > I agree as well....This would be the cleanest solution. This would also > solve the userspace problem of maintaining different lists which can get > out of hand fairly quickly.
After looking into this, a kernel patch would also not work well. It has to be arch specific > > I guess we can warn on that to rewrite in syscall notation. > > We certainly should. I think the user should know that there is a > performance cost associated with watches and we should explicitly mention > how it can be optimized in the manpages also. The reason being I am pretty > sure, numerous users/repos still do make use of the -w notation and we do > want to let them know the issue here. We also need to make quite a few > changes to the manpages also regarding this. Because, initially even I was > very confused when reading the man pages and seeing the actual > implementation of and results were not quite in sync. I have made the changes to the master and audit-3.1-maint branches. Please everyone concerned give them tests. The short of it is that if you use the '- w' notation for watches, it will remain the same and slower. If you use the syscall notation without "-F arch", you will get a warning that it cannot be optimized without adding "-Farch". If you add "-F arch", you will possibly need one for both arches which means doubling the rules. If you do not want to double the rules, you might place a syscall rule for any 32 system call (21-no32bit.rules). Or you can leave it as is and not care. The sample rules and all man pages have been updated. Please, let me know if this works out better. -Steve -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
