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

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.