Re: [PATCH] audit: set TIF_AUDIT_SYSCALL only if audit filter has been populated

[Andy Lutomirski]

> On Mar 8, 2018, at 1:12 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-03-07 18:43, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Jiri Kosina <jikos@xxxxxxxxxx> 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'd agree the race condition here can't easily be fixed and isn't worth
> fixing for the reasons already stated (rules don't change often and may
> even be locked once in place relatively early, scheduling uncertainties).
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> The approach seems a bit draconian since it touches all tasks but only
> when adding the first rule or deleting the last.
> 
> What we lose is the ability to set or clear individual task auditing and
> have it stick to speed up non-audited tasks when there are rules
> present, though this isn't currently used, in favour of audit_context
> presence.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> (and Andy's non-NACK missed too...)  The mailing list *is* in MAINTAINERS.
> 

The mailing list bounces my emails. 

>> Link to the patch is below.
>> 
>> * https://marc.info/?t=152041887600003&r=1&w=2
>> 
>> paul moore
> 
> - RGB
> 
> --
> Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
> Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
> IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
> Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635