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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F26CC05027 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 22:01:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233634AbjBJWBb (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2023 17:01:31 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44100 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233583AbjBJWBa (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2023 17:01:30 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B10A7DD1F for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 14:00:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1676066446; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rBpoNySOkk1lR2L1L/2BfSmbClWUNRdaNhEq2RRlE1I=; b=gl7yn4Q+mGKu+mRZJVexkgPhlOXTpE+jquQYKyPFO/u0jK37VWrzn4BhF+lSE4EVVEO4Y2 QyTTsxaepbhvYJeUfXHwfm4Q/OGzBJ0UCg4qKOAyjbgG2L3hxrgE2p4A/zBRTGwwAwW5Aw qK15JtFWbQTLMxFH6WdOZ7rFezhodAs= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-495-UBb32r4sMrS2mG1TczmGoA-1; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 17:00:45 -0500 X-MC-Unique: UBb32r4sMrS2mG1TczmGoA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10D3A29AB410; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 22:00:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from madcap2.tricolour.ca (unknown [10.22.50.7]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49BC21121315; Fri, 10 Feb 2023 22:00:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 17:00:36 -0500 From: Richard Guy Briggs To: Paul Moore Cc: Jens Axboe , Steve Grubb , Linux-Audit Mailing List , LKML , io-uring@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris , Christian Brauner , Stefan Roesch Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] io_uring,audit: don't log IORING_OP_MADVISE Message-ID: References: <13293926.uLZWGnKmhe@x2> <6939adfb-ce2c-1911-19ee-af32f7d9a5ca@kernel.dk> <56ef99e4-f9de-0634-ce53-3bc2f1fa6665@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org On 2023-02-10 11:52, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:00 AM Jens Axboe wrote: > > On 2/10/23 8:39?AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 7:15 PM Jens Axboe wrote: > > >> 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 wrote: > > >>>>> On 2023-02-01 16:18, Paul Moore wrote: > > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 3:34 PM Richard Guy Briggs > > >>> 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. > > > > > > Call it whatever you want, but the details are often important at this > > > level of code, and when I see a patch author pushing back on verifying > > > that their patch is correct it makes me very skeptical. > > > > Maybe it isn't intended, but the replies have generally had a pretty > > condescending tone to them. That's not the best way to engage folks, and > > may very well be why people just kind of give up on it. Nobody likes > > debating one-liners forever, particularly not if it isn't inviting. > > I appreciate that you are coming from a different space, but I stand > by my comments. Of course you are welcome to your own opinion, but I > would encourage you to spend some time reading the audit mail archives > going back a few years before you make comments like the above ... or > not, that's your call; I recognize it is usually easier to criticize. > > On a quasi related note to the list/archives: unfortunately there was > continued resistance to opening up the linux-audit list so I've setup > audit@vger for upstream audit kernel work moving forward. The list > address in MAINTAINERS will get updated during the next merge window > so hopefully some of the problems you had in the beginning of this > discussion will be better in the future. > > > > I really would have preferred that you held off from merging this > > > until this was resolved and ACK'd ... oh well. > > > > It's still top of tree. If you want to ack it, let me know and I'll add > > it. If you want to nak it, give me something concrete to work off of. > > I can't in good conscience ACK it without some comment from Richard > that he has traced the code paths; this shouldn't be surprising at > this point. I'm not going to NACK it or post a revert, I would have > done that already if I felt that was appropriate. Right now this > patch is in a gray area for me in that I suspect it is good, but I > can't ACK it without some comment that it has been properly > researched. I feel a bit silly replying in this thread. My dad claims that I need to have the last word in any argument, so that way he gets it instead... I appear to have accidentally omitted the connector word "and" between "description" and "code" above, which may have led you to doubt I had gone back and re-looked at the code. > paul-moore.com - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada IRC: rgb, SunRaycer Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635