From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected],
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>,
Alexander Viro <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit,io_uring,io-wq: add some basic audit support to io_uring
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:54:04 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhSK9PQdxvXuCA2NMC3UUEU=imCz_n7TbWgKj2xB2T=fOQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 5/28/21 10:02 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 4:19 PM Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ... If we moved the _entry
>> and _exit calls into the individual operation case blocks (quick
>> openat example below) so that only certain operations were able to be
>> audited would that be acceptable assuming the high frequency ops were
>> untouched? My initial gut feeling was that this would involve >50% of
>> the ops, but Steve Grubb seems to think it would be less; it may be
>> time to look at that a bit more seriously, but if it gets a NACK
>> regardless it isn't worth the time - thoughts?
>>
>> case IORING_OP_OPENAT:
>> audit_uring_entry(req->opcode);
>> ret = io_openat(req, issue_flags);
>> audit_uring_exit(!ret, ret);
>> break;
>
> I wanted to pose this question again in case it was lost in the
> thread, I suspect this may be the last option before we have to "fix"
> things at the Kconfig level. I definitely don't want to have to go
> that route, and I suspect most everyone on this thread feels the same,
> so I'm hopeful we can find a solution that is begrudgingly acceptable
> to both groups.
Sorry for the lack of response here, but to sum up my order of
preference:
1) It's probably better to just make the audit an opt-out in io_op_defs
for each opcode, and avoid needing boiler plate code for each op
handler. The opt-out would ensure that new opcodes get it by default
it someone doesn't know what it is, and the io_op_defs addition would
mean that it's in generic code rather then in the handlers. Yes it's
a bit slower, but it's saner imho.
2) With the above, I'm fine with adding this to io_uring. I don't think
going the route of mutual exclusion in kconfig helps anyone, it'd
be counter productive to both sides.
Hope that works and helps move this forward. I'll be mostly out of touch
the next week and a half, but wanted to ensure that I sent out my
(brief) thoughts before going away.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-03 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-21 21:49 [RFC PATCH 0/9] Add LSM access controls and auditing to io_uring Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:49 ` [RFC PATCH 1/9] audit: prepare audit_context for use in calling contexts beyond syscalls Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:49 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit,io_uring,io-wq: add some basic audit support to io_uring Paul Moore
2021-05-22 0:22 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-05-22 2:36 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-23 20:26 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-05-24 19:59 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-25 8:27 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-05-25 14:53 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 1:11 ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-26 2:04 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 10:19 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-05-26 14:38 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 15:11 ` Steve Grubb
2021-05-26 15:17 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-05-26 15:49 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-05-26 17:22 ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-27 17:27 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-05-26 15:49 ` Victor Stewart
2021-05-26 16:38 ` Casey Schaufler
2021-05-26 17:15 ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-26 17:31 ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-26 17:54 ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-26 18:01 ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-26 18:44 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 18:57 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-05-26 19:10 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 19:44 ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-26 20:19 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-28 16:02 ` Paul Moore
2021-06-02 8:26 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-02 15:46 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-06-03 10:39 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-02 19:46 ` Paul Moore
2021-06-03 10:51 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-03 15:54 ` Casey Schaufler
2021-06-03 15:54 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2021-06-04 5:04 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 18:38 ` Paul Moore
2021-06-02 17:29 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit, io_uring, io-wq: " Richard Guy Briggs
2021-06-02 20:46 ` Paul Moore
2021-08-25 1:21 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-08-25 19:41 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 3/9] audit: dev/test patch to force io_uring auditing Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 4/9] audit: add filtering for io_uring records Paul Moore
2021-05-28 22:35 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-05-30 15:26 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-31 13:44 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-06-02 1:40 ` Paul Moore
2021-06-02 15:37 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-06-02 17:20 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-31 13:44 ` [PATCH 1/2] audit: add filtering for io_uring records, addendum Richard Guy Briggs
2021-05-31 16:08 ` kernel test robot
2021-05-31 17:38 ` kernel test robot
2021-06-07 23:15 ` Paul Moore
2021-06-08 12:55 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-06-09 2:45 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-31 13:44 ` [PATCH 2/2] audit: block PERM fields being used with io_uring filtering Richard Guy Briggs
2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 5/9] fs: add anon_inode_getfile_secure() similar to anon_inode_getfd_secure() Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 6/9] io_uring: convert io_uring to the secure anon inode interface Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 7/9] lsm,io_uring: add LSM hooks to io_uring Paul Moore
2021-05-26 14:48 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-05-26 20:45 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 8/9] selinux: add support for the io_uring access controls Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 9/9] Smack: Brutalist io_uring support with debug Paul Moore
2021-05-22 0:53 ` [RFC PATCH 0/9] Add LSM access controls and auditing to io_uring Tetsuo Handa
2021-05-22 2:06 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 15:00 ` Jeff Moyer
2021-05-26 18:49 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 19:07 ` Jeff Moyer
2021-05-26 19:10 ` Paul Moore
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox