[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d9da8035-ed81-fb28-bf3a-f98c8a1e044a@kernel.dk>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:46:53 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>,
Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>, Stefan Roesch <shr@...com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] two suggested iouring op audit updates
On 1/27/23 3:38 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 2:43 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>> On 1/27/23 12:42 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:40 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/23 10:23 AM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
>>>>> A couple of updates to the iouring ops audit bypass selections suggested in
>>>>> consultation with Steve Grubb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard Guy Briggs (2):
>>>>> io_uring,audit: audit IORING_OP_FADVISE but not IORING_OP_MADVISE
>>>>> io_uring,audit: do not log IORING_OP_*GETXATTR
>>>>>
>>>>> io_uring/opdef.c | 4 +++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> Look fine to me - we should probably add stable to both of them, just
>>>> to keep things consistent across releases. I can queue them up for 6.3.
>>>
>>> Please hold off until I've had a chance to look them over ...
>>
>> I haven't taken anything yet, for things like this I always let it
>> simmer until people have had a chance to do so.
>
> Thanks. FWIW, that sounds very reasonable to me, but I've seen lots
> of different behaviors across subsystems and wanted to make sure we
> were on the same page.
Sounds fair. BTW, can we stop CC'ing closed lists on patch
submissions? Getting these:
Your message to Linux-audit awaits moderator approval
on every reply is really annoying.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists