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 258DDC54EE9 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 02:20:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1662690022; 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=dkE6OLNygW8AXNhdnQL+g1uJXh3ny6mRMzNRsxWjI50=; b=hbJU/z3OK19at43tsTyYKTiDNNJBTzMWZDbjTaWblJjmBkC5x9OvTN+TD8kBDxlKFNrWSa FfrlG8wT4wd8XF/Dc3VzTAT5q4PgQxgWEy90wu4NHvn2OOgRBkOWJcbSlbPGel5PWA6N0Y 1B/30r5cXDtJVcN+K8oFSIweL29CO1s= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-48-GJJyC8RsMAS39EF2NQwerQ-1; Thu, 08 Sep 2022 22:20:19 -0400 X-MC-Unique: GJJyC8RsMAS39EF2NQwerQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 547071C05AA8; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 02:20:18 +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 B2C1E1415102; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 02:20:16 +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 864621946A44; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 02:20:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7CED1946A41 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 02:20:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id C8F6090A04; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 02:20:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from x2.localnet (unknown [10.22.8.167]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41C59909FF; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 02:20:15 +0000 (UTC) From: Steve Grubb To: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] fanotify, audit: Allow audit to use the full permission event response Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2022 22:20:14 -0400 Message-ID: <2254258.ElGaqSPkdT@x2> Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: References: <2603742.X9hSmTKtgW@x2> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.11.54.5 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: Jan Kara , Richard Guy Briggs , Amir Goldstein , LKML , Linux-Audit Mailing List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Sender: "Linux-audit" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.85 on 10.11.54.7 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, September 8, 2022 5:22:15 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 5:14 PM Steve Grubb wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 4:23:49 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 4:11 PM Steve Grubb wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 2:43:54 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > > > > Ultimately I guess I'll leave it upto audit subsystem what it > > > > > > > wants > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > have in its struct fanotify_response_info_audit_rule because > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > fanotify subsystem, it is just an opaque blob it is passing. > > > > > > > > > > > > In that case, let's stick with leveraging the type/len fields in > > > > > > the > > > > > > fanotify_response_info_header struct, that should give us all the > > > > > > flexibility we need. > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard and Steve, it sounds like Steve is already aware of > > > > > > additional > > > > > > information that he wants to send via the > > > > > > fanotify_response_info_audit_rule struct, please include that in > > > > > > the > > > > > > next revision of this patchset. I don't want to get this merged > > > > > > and > > > > > > then soon after have to hack in additional info. > > > > > > > > > > Steve, please define the type and name of this additional field. > > > > > > > > Maybe extra_data, app_data, or extra_info. Something generic that can > > > > be > > > > reused by any application. Default to 0 if not present. > > > > > > I think the point is being missed ... The idea is to not speculate on > > > additional fields, as discussed we have ways to handle that, the issue > > > was that Steve implied that he already had ideas for "things" he > > > wanted to add. If there are "things" that need to be added, let's do > > > that now, however if there is just speculation that maybe someday we > > > might need to add something else we can leave that until later. > > > > This is not speculation. I know what I want to put there. I know you want > > to pin it down to exactly what it is. However, when this started a > > couple years back, one of the concerns was that we're building something > > specific to 1 user of fanotify. And that it would be better for all > > future users to have a generic facility that everyone could use if they > > wanted to. That's why I'm suggesting something generic, its so this is > > not special purpose that doesn't fit any other use case. > > Well, we are talking specifically about fanotify in this thread and > dealing with data structures that are specific to fanotify. I can > understand wanting to future proof things, but based on what we've > seen in this thread I think we are all set in this regard. I'm trying to abide by what was suggested by the fs-devel folks. I can live with it. But if you want to make something non-generic for all users of fanotify, call the new field "trusted". This would decern when a decision was made because the file was untrusted or access denied for another reason. > You mention that you know what you want to put in the struct, why not > share the details with all of us so we are all on the same page and > can have a proper discussion. Because I want to abide by the original agreement and not impose opinionated requirements that serve no one else. I'd rather have something anyone can use. I want to play nice. -Steve -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit