Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220326094654.2361956-1-yang.yang29@zte.com.cn>
 <202203270449.WBYQF9X3-lkp@intel.com> <62426553.1c69fb81.bb808.345c@mx.google.com>
 <CAHC9VhRNuoPH6AySUbe6h2D6kghhezyVQtTAvm-t-fTpXH6XwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <62427b5c.1c69fb81.fc2a7.d1af@mx.google.com> <CAHC9VhTLTQmHaka9tTyuu=rQOzpsn_K2NxfJ==7-6FSY3KnuFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6243f1d7.1c69fb81.b19c7.7ec1@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <6243f1d7.1c69fb81.b19c7.7ec1@mx.google.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 10:48:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTxACMG=V_J1OYy_7VjM3LjuNJcwJSf6om1eO8esCDAbg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: do a quick exit when syscall number is invalid
To:     CGEL <cgel.zte@gmail.com>
Cc:     rth@twiddle.net, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru, mattst88@gmail.com,
        eparis@redhat.com, linux-audit@redhat.com, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yang Yang <yang.yang29@zte.com.cn>,
        Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 1:59 AM CGEL <cgel.zte@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 09:11:19AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:22 PM CGEL <cgel.zte@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:06:12PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 9:48 PM CGEL <cgel.zte@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Sorry could anybody give a hand to solve this? It works well on x86_64 and arm64.
> > > > > I have no alpha environment and not familiar to this arch, much thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Regardless of if this is fixed, I'm not convinced this is something we
> > > > want to merge.  After all, a process executed a syscall and we should
> > > > process it like any other; just because it happens to be an
> > > > unrecognized syscall on a particular kernel build doesn't mean it
> > > > isn't security relevant (probing for specific syscall numbers may be a
> > > > useful attack fingerprint).
> > >
> > > Thanks for your reply.
> > >
> > > But syscall number less than 0 is even invalid for auditctl. So we
> > > will never hit this kind of audit rule. And invalid syscall number
> > > will always cause failure early in syscall handle.
> > >
> > > sh-4.2# auditctl -a always,exit -F arch=b64 -S -1
> > > Syscall name unknown: -1
> >
> > You can add an audit filter without explicitly specifying a syscall:
> >
> > % auditctl -a exit,always -F auid=1000
> > % auditctl -l
> > -a always,exit -S all -F auid=1000
> >
> I have tried this, and execute program which call syscall number is -1,
> audit still didn't record it. It supports that there's no need for audit
> to handle syscall number less than 0.
>
> sh-4.2# auditctl -a exit,always
> sh-4.2# auditctl -l
> -a always,exit -S all

If audit is not generating SYSCALL records, even for invalid/ENOSYS
syscalls, I would consider that a bug which should be fixed.

-- 
paul-moore.com