Re: [PATCH v2] io_uring,audit: don't log IORING_OP_MADVISE

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 7:15 PM Jens Axboe <axboe(a)kernel.dk&gt; 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 <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>> On 2023-02-01 16:18, Paul Moore wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 3:34 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com&gt; >> 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.

I really would have preferred that you held off from merging this until this was resolved and ACK'd ... oh well.