On Oct 23, 2015 10:01 AM, "Kees Cook" <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: > > I would argue that, if auditing is off, audit_seccomp shouldn't do > > anything. After all, unlike e.g. selinux, seccomp is not a systemwide > > policy, and seccomp signals might be ordinary behavior that's internal > > to the seccomp-using application. IOW, for people with audit compiled > > in and subscribed by journald but switched off, I think that the > > records shouldn't be emitted. > > > > If you agree, I can send the two-line patch. > > I think signr==0 states (which I would identify as "intended > behavior") don't need to be reported under any situation, but audit > folks wanted to keep it around.
Even if there is a nonzero signr, it could just be a program opting to trap and emulate one of its own syscalls. --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
