From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Paul Moore <[email protected]>, Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [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: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:26:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhSK9PQdxvXuCA2NMC3UUEU=imCz_n7TbWgKj2xB2T=fOQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 5/28/21 5:02 PM, 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.
May work for me, but have to ask how many, and what is the
criteria? I'd think anything opening a file or manipulating fs:
IORING_OP_ACCEPT, IORING_OP_CONNECT, IORING_OP_OPENAT[2],
IORING_OP_RENAMEAT, IORING_OP_UNLINKAT, IORING_OP_SHUTDOWN,
IORING_OP_FILES_UPDATE
+ coming mkdirat and others.
IORING_OP_CLOSE? IORING_OP_SEND IORING_OP_RECV?
What about?
IORING_OP_FSYNC, IORING_OP_SYNC_FILE_RANGE,
IORING_OP_FALLOCATE, IORING_OP_STATX,
IORING_OP_FADVISE, IORING_OP_MADVISE,
IORING_OP_EPOLL_CTL
Another question, io_uring may exercise asynchronous paths,
i.e. io_issue_sqe() returns before requests completes.
Shouldn't be the case for open/etc at the moment, but was that
considered?
I don't see it happening, but would prefer to keep it open
async reimplementation in a distant future. Does audit sleep?
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-02 8:27 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 [this message]
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
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