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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47BFC43381 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:36:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE69218B0 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:36:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=f-secure.com header.i=@f-secure.com header.b="TOm2g1pE" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727956AbfCUIgq (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 04:36:46 -0400 Received: from helmsgmaster01.f-secure.com ([193.110.108.20]:38790 "EHLO helmsgmaster01.f-secure.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725985AbfCUIgp (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 04:36:45 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (helmsgmaster01.f-secure.com [127.0.0.1]) by helmsgmaster01.f-secure.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x2L8ZgrU029710; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:36:40 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=f-secure.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : references : date : in-reply-to : message-id : mime-version : content-type; s=msg2048; bh=8m9U8foO3ROcCthrJEHCe+9tAt1MV7BClI8yAEo5LLs=; b=TOm2g1pE6wMmpdE1IbYBfswM9Qr8jroctVo9uvcxdHDdnXF0lb2Hy3nYhoMTx3dfVG9c ilNpOKZ8ZJO2Rblo09tCumVGfmWkm2SzKEzM3Ls1iaVT3ctXaoISfxhugkUyWqiIYwbH UdtthJt4o8tznUE4cwfX8SP+hZg2uzo55ANpFr31u4g7elya/I/Ar9uHSjSWaJz1A8wj ISnhU+7WsIHLm8X4+WPyyuD7IRN+z2ObKcEaaEqIJ+HCoiexkztFofGlEDPyX8Ges0Lk XYlNxNBri8RO9x0IUVTDHf2gnVpGgapM5Ubz9OmxbQUu84XbJgvIi2C2Geel7qRKa6by vg== Received: from helex02.fi.f-secure.com ([10.190.48.73]) by helmsgmaster01.f-secure.com with ESMTP id 2r8p5kdfa5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:36:40 +0200 Received: from drapion.f-secure.com (10.128.132.96) by helex01.FI.F-Secure.com (10.190.48.70) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:36:39 +0200 From: Marko Rauhamaa To: Amir Goldstein CC: Jan Kara , linux-fsdevel , , Al Viro Subject: Re: fanotify permission events on virtual filesystem References: <20190320131642.GE9485@quack2.suse.cz> <20190320143048.GH9485@quack2.suse.cz> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:36:40 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Amir Goldstein's message of "Wed, 20 Mar 2019 17:02:54 +0200") Message-ID: <87imwcfwtj.fsf@drapion.f-secure.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Amir Goldstein : > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:30 PM Jan Kara wrote: >> Well, I didn't mean all marks, just the permission ones. I'm not sure >> there are apps that place permission events on /proc... > > Maybe not intentionally. > I once tested a few fanotify based AntiVirus solutions. > In some of them, setting an "Exclude path" on some mount point > would cause mark to not be set on that path, but for one in particular, > the mark was still being set on the mount so path pattern filtering was > done after receiving the events. > I did not check whether /proc was blacklisted out of the box or if it > could be marked/excluded from scan. > IMO, assuming that all AntiVirus vendors blacklist all virtual filesystems > is an assumption that we need to validate. > [CC Marko from F-Secure for commenting on the above.] Yeah, we have learned by experimentation to not mark some file systems. (Also, inspecting some /proc files *during* OPEN_PERM processing of a regular file can lead to deadlocks.) Marko