public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Steve Grubb <[email protected]>,
	Richard Guy Briggs <[email protected]>,
	Paul Moore <[email protected]>
Cc: Linux-Audit Mailing List <[email protected]>,
	LKML <[email protected]>,
	[email protected], Eric Paris <[email protected]>,
	Christian Brauner <[email protected]>,
	Stefan Roesch <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] io_uring,audit: don't log IORING_OP_MADVISE
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 17:15:53 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13293926.uLZWGnKmhe@x2>

On 2/9/23 3:54 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-01 16:18, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 3:34 PM Richard Guy Briggs <[email protected]> 
> 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.

Agree, it's getting a bit anal... FWIW, patch looks fine to me.

-- 
Jens Axboe



  reply	other threads:[~2023-02-10  0:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-02-01 20:33 [PATCH v2] io_uring,audit: don't log IORING_OP_MADVISE Richard Guy Briggs
2023-02-01 21:18 ` Paul Moore
2023-02-09 21:53   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2023-02-09 22:37     ` Paul Moore
2023-02-09 22:54       ` Steve Grubb
2023-02-10  0:15         ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2023-02-10 15:39           ` Paul Moore
2023-02-10 16:00             ` Jens Axboe
2023-02-10 16:52               ` Paul Moore
2023-02-10 16:58                 ` Jens Axboe
2023-02-10 22:00                 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2023-02-10 22:59                   ` Paul Moore
2023-02-10 23:01                     ` Jens Axboe
2023-02-10 15:33         ` Paul Moore
2023-02-10  1:31 ` Jens Axboe

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