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

On 1/27/23 3:53 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:46 PM Jens Axboe <axboe(a)kernel.dk&gt; 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&gt; 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&gt; 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. Sure, but then it should be open. Or do separate postings or something. CC'ing a closed list with open lists and sending email to people that are not on that closed list is bad form.