[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#693568: closed by Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> (Re: Bug#693568: linux-image-3.6-trunk-amd64: audit subsystem is far too chatty)



On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 04:26 +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 01:45:04AM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-11-17 at 23:05 +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > > Package: src:linux
> > > Version: 3.6.6-1~experimental.1
> > > Severity: normal
> > > 
> > > As you can see in the logs below, the audit subsystem logs entirely too
> > > many audit messages.  Since this is built into the kernel, I cannot
> > > unload the module to prevent it from logging.  Since I use chrome, which
> > > uses seccomp (apparently), this makes lots of useless noise in the logs,
> > > preventing me from seeing important messages.  Earlier versions of the
> > > kernel were not so verbose; please revert whatever change made the audit
> > > subsystem so chatty.
> > [...]
> > 
> > This is a bug in Chrome, please report it there.
> 
> Last I checked, Chrome did not write to the kernel ring buffer.  The
> kernel does not need to log every audit failure any more than it needs
> to log every time a process tries to read a file that it does not have
> permission to read or every segfault that occurs or every packet
> dropped.

It's rate-limited.

> At the very least, there should be a file in procfs or sysfs
> that allows people to turn this off if they don't want their logs filled
> with useless crap.  All sorts of unexpected behaviors are blocked on
> operating systems; very few of them deserve an entry in the kernel log.

There's a good reason Chrome has a sandbox, and a reason why you should
know if it looks like something's trying to escape from it.  (Though I
think this is more likely to be a simple bug than a blocked attack.)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular. - Adlai Stevenson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: