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

On 2023-02-10 11:52, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:00 AM Jens Axboe <axboe(a)kernel.dk&gt; wrote: > > On 2/10/23 8:39?AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > > 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. > > > > 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.