On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 9:39 AM Steve Grubb wrote: > > On Thursday, March 31, 2022 9:57:05 PM EDT CGEL wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:16:23AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:29 PM CGEL wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:48:12AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > If audit is not generating SYSCALL records, even for invalid/ENOSYS > > > > > syscalls, I would consider that a bug which should be fixed. > > > > > > > > If we fix this bug, do you think audit invalid/ENOSYS syscalls better > > > > be forcible or be a rule that can be configure? I think configure is > > > > better. > > > > > > It isn't clear to me exactly what you are asking, but I would expect > > > the existing audit syscall filtering mechanism to work regardless if > > > the syscall is valid or not. > > > > Thanks, I try to make it more clear. We found that auditctl would only > > set rule with syscall number (>=0 && <2047) ... That is exactly why I wrote the warning below in my response ... > > > Beware that there are some limitations > > > to the audit syscall filter, which are unfortunately baked into the > > > current design/implementation, which may affect this to some extent. -- paul-moore.com