Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Improved seccomp logging

From: Kees Cook
Date: Wed Feb 22 2017 - 13:47:02 EST

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> This patch set is the third revision of the following two previously
>>> submitted patch sets:
>>> v1:
>>> v1:
>>> v2:
>>> The patch set aims to address some known deficiencies in seccomp's current
>>> logging capabilities:
>>> 1. Inability to log all filter actions.
>>> 2. Inability to selectively enable filtering; e.g. devs want noisy logging,
>>> users want relative quiet.
>>> 3. Consistent behavior with audit enabled and disabled.
>>> 4. Inability to easily develop a filter due to the lack of a
>>> permissive/complain mode.
>> I think I dislike this, but I think my dislikes may be fixable with
>> minor changes.
>> What I dislike is that this mixes app-specific built-in configuration
>> (seccomp) with global privileged stuff (audit). The result is a
>> potentially difficult to use situation in which you need to modify an
>> app to make it loggable (using RET_LOG) and then fiddle with
>> privileged config (auditctl, etc) to actually see the logs.
> You make a good point about RET_LOG vs log_max_action. I think making
> RET_LOG the default value would work for 99% of the cases.

Actually, I take this back: making "log" the default means that
everything else gets logged too, include "expected" return values like
errno, trap, etc. I think that would be extremely noisy as a default
(for upstream or Ubuntu).

Perhaps RET_LOG should unconditionally log? Or maybe the logged
actions should be a bit field instead of a single value? Then the
default could be "RET_KILL and RET_LOG", but an admin could switch it
to just RET_KILL, or even nothing at all? Hmmm...


Kees Cook
Pixel Security