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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 9B672C4708C for ; Fri, 28 May 2021 16:03:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756FB611AB for ; Fri, 28 May 2021 16:03:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234266AbhE1QEq (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 May 2021 12:04:46 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54254 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232832AbhE1QEq (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 May 2021 12:04:46 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x635.google.com (mail-ej1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::635]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 007C9C061761 for ; Fri, 28 May 2021 09:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x635.google.com with SMTP id h20so6181858ejg.1 for ; Fri, 28 May 2021 09:03:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=n2mkp1VfbRLXyX9BQ4/sufzNob6zQwJ5kWZnckwzjKg=; b=XN2MWTRNcK+CU7plcx6VTpATsrmsKATolYVbfOniDSO21Y5pEf6h2GpH8bMm+fAQho QkHK8FyZQLQNtBE7JZYv/2AnbIH+DDVekQS3/V/7JGJXqrvtdcZ/O8kYGScYEv9Z4bvm mdJga8p/z8HPfzRFgQd00MyNZTUULOc2FUKYxpVnBTLbNs5wuq9ktq8W1/70TYiNFkVk Ev6r8oW4NAs4E+07r1ee8XbEzaXNon4sr681aBZAPumTSWH3ZQkf0lAdxkmo08ApAqhs +UyR+OvZme+Ckor57XsUteckvvq93NYjoNNkVka6PbHUHdjO+PIkjvAcitoS4O5QKSkb T3tw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=n2mkp1VfbRLXyX9BQ4/sufzNob6zQwJ5kWZnckwzjKg=; b=MS6MFgFbPM4ocPoib/DtucYllfaSIgfzBTvupAulY//owazcXpeDqSsjnrXDGrZv+r 2rFviJeNUFPfpwN8nlaDXpOfTEUPdg1o+vL2wU+6ZkHA4kN1sgVOL7wExjOKm2XOBABR YRI1AHoDDc1EK0tHbRH/E6YPX7dEJD+c1H8BlaKaLcGjR6a7izcOm3byjcvnz6COSS2A JAh6KcOQdpRPe0svoJh3AfMVwPpnjSKv/Ab4lPdTWE2wmcQYA4o7PrjYlaCg5k/kSQZ4 tg7kgL7rB29baAPia0x5OaINwMhWaQsljO+EMkLIiV75h3UoRXsNxv22E4Brc7hSK1WX 6YRA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jr6ZzG4m84fnDSeDEI9FbDVOaKSAgOZ1Zb/didKimuP2IDLm7 QoxLWv8/o90u6XGpvCSjK/BoDJUAvPpgB7uyvKAq X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxRjX3Ws7VBEcmMgQB006OahZcwDvgkWQ9e4I1WzulhYU5E4GfGyPMI6cxRYYL7k/JKuuFBrGiK18GyCTgkyuA= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4111:: with SMTP id j17mr150091ejk.488.1622217789328; Fri, 28 May 2021 09:03:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <162163367115.8379.8459012634106035341.stgit@sifl> <162163379461.8379.9691291608621179559.stgit@sifl> <162219f9-7844-0c78-388f-9b5c06557d06@gmail.com> <8943629d-3c69-3529-ca79-d7f8e2c60c16@kernel.dk> <9e69e4b6-2b87-a688-d604-c7f70be894f5@kernel.dk> <3bef7c8a-ee70-d91d-74db-367ad0137d00@kernel.dk> In-Reply-To: From: Paul Moore Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 12:02:58 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit,io_uring,io-wq: add some basic audit support to io_uring To: Jens Axboe Cc: Pavel Begunkov , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi , Alexander Viro Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 4:19 PM Paul Moore 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. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com