From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754899Ab2B0T0Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:26:24 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60629 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751738Ab2B0T0W (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:26:22 -0500 Message-ID: <1330370733.2542.18.camel@localhost> Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 06/12] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF From: Eric Paris To: Kees Cook Cc: Will Drewry , Kees Cook , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, davem@davemloft.net, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, mcgrathr@chromium.org, tglx@linutronix.de, luto@mit.edu, serge.hallyn@canonical.com, djm@mindrot.org, scarybeasts@gmail.com, indan@nul.nu, pmoore@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, markus@chromium.org, coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:25:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <1330140111-17201-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> <1330140111-17201-6-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> <20120226202828.GE3990@outflux.net> <1330361396.2542.11.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 10:55 -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Eric Paris wrote: > You mean as used in audit_log_exit() ? It looks like that depends on a > lot of state cached in __audit_syscall_entry() and finally triggered > in __audit_syscall_exit() (and ..._free()). I don't think this is > really want seccomp wants to be involved in. > > By CONFIG_AUDITSC, you mean CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL? Without that set, > audit_seccomp is a no-op. > > The reason compat needs to be reported (or rather, arch) is because > just reporting syscall is ambiguous. It either needs arch or compat to > distinguish it. Yes, that is what I mean and you are right. You shouldn't push the syscall in this record either. If !audit_dummy_context() you are already going to get arch, syscall, and a0-a4 in the associated audit record. Please do not duplicate that info. It might make sense to have a separate audit_seccomp() path when audit_dummy_context() which includes arch, syscall, and a0-a4. It is my fault (85e7bac3) that we have syscall at all, but I'm on a new crusade to remove audit record duplication. So I'd happily see a patch in this series that removes that instead of adds to it. -Eric