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

[Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>]

On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 11:48 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 27, 2023 5:53:24 PM EST 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.
> >
> > However, I agree that it is crap that the linux-audit list is
> > moderated, but unfortunately that isn't something I control (I haven't
> > worked for RH in years, and even then the list owner was really weird
> > about managing the list).  Occasionally I grumble about moving the
> > kernel audit development to a linux-audit list on vger but haven't
> > bothered yet, perhaps this is as good a reason as any.
> >
> > Richard, Steve - any chance of opening the linux-audit list?
>
> Unfortunately, it really has to be this way. I deleted 10 spam emails
> yesterday. It seems like some people subscribed to this list are compromised.
> Because everytime there is a legit email, it's followed in a few seconds by a
> spam email.
>
> Anyways, all legit email will be approved without needing to be subscribed.

The problem is that other subsystem developers who aren't subscribed
to the linux-audit list end up getting held mail notices (see the
comments from Jens).  The moderation of linux-audit, as permissive as
it may be for proper emails, is a problem for upstream linux audit
development, I would say much more so than 10/day mails.

If you are unable/unwilling to switch linux-audit over to an open
mailing list we should revisit moving over to a vger list; at least
for upstream kernel development, you are welcome to stick with the
existing redhat.com list for discussion of your userspace tools.

-- 
paul-moore.com