Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190923155041.GA14807@codemonkey.org.uk> <CAHC9VhTyz7fd+iQaymVXUGFe3ZA5Z_WkJeY_snDYiZ9GP6gCOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190923210021.5vfc2fo4wopennj5@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20190923210021.5vfc2fo4wopennj5@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:01:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQPvS7mfmeomRLJ+SyXk=tZprSJQ9Ays3qr=+rqd=L16Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ntp audit spew.
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc:     Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>, linux-audit@redhat.com,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:00 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2019-09-23 12:14, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:50 AM Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have some hosts that are constantly spewing audit messages like so:
> > >
> > > [46897.591182] audit: type=1333 audit(1569250288.663:220): op=offset old=2543677901372 new=2980866217213
> > > [46897.591184] audit: type=1333 audit(1569250288.663:221): op=freq old=-2443166611284 new=-2436281764244
>
> Odd.  It appears these two above should have the same serial number and
> should be accompanied by a syscall record.  It appears that it has no
> context to update to connect the two records.  Is it possible it is not
> being called in a task context?  If that were the case though, I'd
> expect audit_dummy_context() to return 1...

Yeah, I'm a little confused with these messages too.  As you pointed
out, the different serial numbers imply that the audit_context is NULL
and if the audit_context is NULL I would have expected it to fail the
audit_dummy_context() check in audit_ntp_log().  I'm looking at this
with tired eyes at the moment, so I'm likely missing something, but I
just don't see it right now ...

What is even more confusing is that I don't see this issue on my test systems.

> Checking audit_enabled should not be necessary but might fix the
> problem, but still not explain why we're getting these records.

I'd like to understand why this is happening before we start changing the code.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com