Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] fanotify,audit: Allow audit to use the full permission event response

On 2022-09-08 22:20, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Thursday, September 8, 2022 5:22:15 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 5:14 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 4:23:49 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 4:11 PM Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 2:43:54 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs > wrote: > > > > > > > > Ultimately I guess I'll leave it upto audit subsystem what it > > > > > > > > wants > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > have in its struct fanotify_response_info_audit_rule because > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > fanotify subsystem, it is just an opaque blob it is passing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In that case, let's stick with leveraging the type/len fields in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > fanotify_response_info_header struct, that should give us all the > > > > > > > flexibility we need. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard and Steve, it sounds like Steve is already aware of > > > > > > > additional > > > > > > > information that he wants to send via the > > > > > > > fanotify_response_info_audit_rule struct, please include that in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > next revision of this patchset. I don't want to get this merged > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > then soon after have to hack in additional info. > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve, please define the type and name of this additional field. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe extra_data, app_data, or extra_info. Something generic that can > > > > > be > > > > > reused by any application. Default to 0 if not present. > > > > > > > > I think the point is being missed ... The idea is to not speculate on > > > > additional fields, as discussed we have ways to handle that, the issue > > > > was that Steve implied that he already had ideas for "things" he > > > > wanted to add. If there are "things" that need to be added, let's do > > > > that now, however if there is just speculation that maybe someday we > > > > might need to add something else we can leave that until later. > > > > > > This is not speculation. I know what I want to put there. I know you want > > > to pin it down to exactly what it is. However, when this started a > > > couple years back, one of the concerns was that we're building something > > > specific to 1 user of fanotify. And that it would be better for all > > > future users to have a generic facility that everyone could use if they > > > wanted to. That's why I'm suggesting something generic, its so this is > > > not special purpose that doesn't fit any other use case. > > > > Well, we are talking specifically about fanotify in this thread and > > dealing with data structures that are specific to fanotify. I can > > understand wanting to future proof things, but based on what we've > > seen in this thread I think we are all set in this regard. > > I'm trying to abide by what was suggested by the fs-devel folks. I can live > with it. But if you want to make something non-generic for all users of > fanotify, call the new field "trusted". This would decern when a decision was > made because the file was untrusted or access denied for another reason. So, "u32 trusted;" ? How would you like that formatted? "fan_trust={0|1}" > > You mention that you know what you want to put in the struct, why not > > share the details with all of us so we are all on the same page and > > can have a proper discussion. > > Because I want to abide by the original agreement and not impose opinionated > requirements that serve no one else. I'd rather have something anyone can > use. I want to play nice. If someone else wants to use something, why not give them a type of their own other than FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_AUDIT_RULE that they can shape however they like?