Should audit_seccomp check audit_enabled?

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Oct 23, 2015 10:01 AM, "Kees Cook" <keescook at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at amacapital.net> wrote:
> > I would argue that, if auditing is off, audit_seccomp shouldn't do
> > anything.  After all, unlike e.g. selinux, seccomp is not a systemwide
> > policy, and seccomp signals might be ordinary behavior that's internal
> > to the seccomp-using application.  IOW, for people with audit compiled
> > in and subscribed by journald but switched off, I think that the
> > records shouldn't be emitted.
> >
> > If you agree, I can send the two-line patch.
>
> I think signr==0 states (which I would identify as "intended
> behavior") don't need to be reported under any situation, but audit
> folks wanted to keep it around.

Even if there is a nonzero signr, it could just be a program opting to
trap and emulate one of its own syscalls.

--Andy