On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 11:48 AM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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