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

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.