Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] two suggested iouring op audit updates

From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
	Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
	Stefan Roesch <shr@fb.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
	io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] two suggested iouring op audit updates
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 18:07:40 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9RZPFTA8UUam12R@madcap2.tricolour.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7904e869-f885-e406-9fe6-495a6e9790e4@kernel.dk>

On 2023-01-27 16:02, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/27/23 3:53 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:46 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >> On 1/27/23 3:38 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 2:43 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >>>> On 1/27/23 12:42 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:40 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:23 AM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> >>>>>>> A couple of updates to the iouring ops audit bypass selections suggested in
> >>>>>>> consultation with Steve Grubb.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Richard Guy Briggs (2):
> >>>>>>>   io_uring,audit: audit IORING_OP_FADVISE but not IORING_OP_MADVISE
> >>>>>>>   io_uring,audit: do not log IORING_OP_*GETXATTR
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  io_uring/opdef.c | 4 +++-
> >>>>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Look fine to me - we should probably add stable to both of them, just
> >>>>>> to keep things consistent across releases. I can queue them up for 6.3.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please hold off until I've had a chance to look them over ...
> >>>>
> >>>> I haven't taken anything yet, for things like this I always let it
> >>>> simmer until people have had a chance to do so.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.  FWIW, that sounds very reasonable to me, but I've seen lots
> >>> of different behaviors across subsystems and wanted to make sure we
> >>> were on the same page.
> >>
> >> Sounds fair. BTW, can we stop CC'ing closed lists on patch
> >> submissions? Getting these:
> >>
> >> Your message to Linux-audit awaits moderator approval
> >>
> >> on every reply is really annoying.
> > 
> > We kinda need audit related stuff on the linux-audit list, that's our
> > mailing list for audit stuff.
> 
> Sure, but then it should be open. Or do separate postings or something.
> CC'ing a closed list with open lists and sending email to people that
> are not on that closed list is bad form.

I've made an inquiry.

> Jens Axboe

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635
--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit