From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 583C8C05027 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 22:54:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1675983271; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=7fK4DaUGhWmegL9aF78jI0pHXNAYWJiJLSPz/rsDcaQ=; b=KOtTKZwEY8I29rq3VpnFzxbdOA7F94cJRmJUm2gU9gA+DIDRJqD2pFfm7rDtSFoo6imupI +jO4Y0YFJdN9s0D1AZ9+4fEsygHeGGzXwxFxUJGImtIWPaa0uk6eulxPhoAg3Y8xQK3iw5 xA9uBt5s8EuTdF0dz5hRgpgrAzVH/Mk= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-20-CotXsGsMMMS5HczEl_ec7Q-1; Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:54:30 -0500 X-MC-Unique: CotXsGsMMMS5HczEl_ec7Q-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8F8F1802D42; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 22:54:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (unknown [10.30.29.100]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C493E1121315; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 22:54:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1289194658D; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 22:54:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336CF1946589 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 22:54:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id E0A9D40B42D4; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 22:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from x2.localnet (unknown [10.22.33.104]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 663DB401014C; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 22:54:25 +0000 (UTC) From: Steve Grubb To: Richard Guy Briggs , Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] io_uring,audit: don't log IORING_OP_MADVISE Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:54:24 -0500 Message-ID: <13293926.uLZWGnKmhe@x2> Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.1 X-BeenThere: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Audit Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Christian Brauner , LKML , Linux-Audit Mailing List , Stefan Roesch , Eric Paris , io-uring@vger.kernel.org Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Sender: "Linux-audit" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, February 9, 2023 5:37:22 PM EST Paul Moore wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 4:53 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On 2023-02-01 16:18, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 3:34 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > fadvise and madvise both provide hints for caching or access pattern > > > > for file and memory respectively. Skip them. > > > > > > You forgot to update the first sentence in the commit description :/ > > > > I didn't forget. I updated that sentence to reflect the fact that the > > two should be treated similarly rather than differently. > > Ooookay. Can we at least agree that the commit description should be > rephrased to make it clear that the patch only adjusts madvise? Right > now I read the commit description and it sounds like you are adjusting > the behavior for both fadvise and madvise in this patch, which is not > true. > > > > I'm still looking for some type of statement that you've done some > > > homework on the IORING_OP_MADVISE case to ensure that it doesn't end > > > up calling into the LSM, see my previous emails on this. I need more > > > than "Steve told me to do this". > > > > > > I basically just want to see that some care and thought has gone into > > > this patch to verify it is correct and good. > > > > Steve suggested I look into a number of iouring ops. I looked at the > > description code and agreed that it wasn't necessary to audit madvise. > > The rationale for fadvise was detemined to have been conflated with > > fallocate and subsequently dropped. Steve also suggested a number of > > others and after investigation I decided that their current state was > > correct. *getxattr you've advised against, so it was dropped. It > > appears fewer modifications were necessary than originally suspected. > > My concern is that three of the four changes you initially proposed > were rejected, which gives me pause about the fourth. You mention > that based on your reading of madvise's description you feel auditing > isn't necessary - and you may be right - but based on our experience > so far with this patchset I would like to hear that you have properly > investigated all of the madvise code paths, and I would like that in > the commit description. I think you're being unnecessarily hard on this. Yes, the commit message might be touched up. But madvise is advisory in nature. It is not security relevant. And a grep through the security directory doesn't turn up any hooks. -Steve -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit