[RFC PATCH v1] audit: log AUDIT_TIME_* records only from rules

Paul Moore paul at paul-moore.com
Fri Nov 19 16:15:55 UTC 2021


On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:53 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2021-11-04 17:29, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:00 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > AUDIT_TIME_* events are generated when there are syscall rules present that are
> > > not related to time keeping.  This will produce noisy log entries that could
> > > flood the logs and hide events we really care about.
> > >
> > > Rather than immediately produce the AUDIT_TIME_* records, store the data and
> > > log it at syscall exit time respecting the filter rules.
> > >
> > > Please see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991919
> >
> > Unfortunately that URL isn't publicly accessible.  It might be helpful
> > to simply add the relevant information to the commit description[1]
> > and omit the link entirely.  Since this is just an RFC, please don't
> > resend the patch just to include that information, you can simply
> > reply to this thread with the additional info.
>
> Hmmm, sorry about that.  There isn't really anything in that bz that
> shouldn't be public, but I'll check before openning it up...
>
> Basically it was a report that:
> TIME_ADJNTPVAL audit events are not generated if there are no syscalls
> rules, but that these events are generated when at least one unrelated
> syscall rule is added.
>
> This behaviour was confirmed but the conclusion about what should be the
> correct behaviour differed from that of the reporter.

I'm still wondering about the best way to handle this situation, and I
want to make sure I'm understanding the problem correctly.  So I'm
clear on the problem, is the issue that the AUDIT_TIME records are
being generated whenever at least one syscall filter is present,
regardless of if that syscall is time related?  With the expected
behavior being that AUDIT_TIME records are only generated when a time
related syscall is being audited?

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com




More information about the Linux-audit mailing list