Re: [PATCH 2/2] seccomp: Audit SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO actions with errno values

[Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>]

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2017 5:42:47 PM EST Tyler Hicks wrote:
>> On 2017-01-02 12:20:53, Steve Grubb wrote:
>> > On Monday, January 2, 2017 4:53:10 PM EST Tyler Hicks wrote:

...

>> Thanks for having a look at the field name I was using. Although I
>> prefer "errno" over "exit" in terms of clarity, I agree that it makes
>> sense to be consistent with the field names across record types. "exit"
>> works for me.

FWIW, we have a nice (searchable due to GitHub CSV magic) audit field
database at the link below.  I will admit that it may be a bit crusty
in places, but we are making a new effort to keep it updated, if you
notice anything wrong, send email and/or a PR.

* https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-documentation/blob/master/specs/fields/field-dictionary.csv

>> > http://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/files/auformat.tar.gz
>> >
>> > $ ausearch --start today --just-one -m syscall -sv no --raw | ./auformat
>> > "%EXIT\n"
>> >
>> > Also, I am working to normalize all the records. That mean every event
>> > record of the same type has the same fields, in the same order, with the
>> > same representation. I would think "exit" could be added to the current
>> > record after syscall so that its ordered similarly to a syscall record.
>>
>> This patch goes against your normalization efforts in more ways than
>> just the placement of the "exit" field. If the action is
>> SECCOMP_RET_KILL, a "sig" field is present but if the action is
>> SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO, the "sig" field will not be present but the "errno"
>> field will be present. This happens all within the AUDIT_SECCOMP record
>> type. How would you suggest normalizing AUDIT_SECCOMP records for
>> different seccomp return actions?
>
> Typically when the layout has to change, we just give it a new record type.

I'm going to be very loathe to accept any new record types that *only*
reorder fields; if you need to add a new field, simply add it to the
end of the record.  From my perspective new record types are really
only an option if we need to remove a field that is bogus/confusing or
some other similar case that is not easily solved.  New record types
are a last resort.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com