lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRpu7WZDqWKcLDj18A0Z5FJdUU=eUL3wbJH1CnEBWB4GA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 17:53:24 -0500 From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> 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 Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:46 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote: > 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. We kinda need audit related stuff on the linux-audit list, that's our mailing list for audit stuff. However, I agree that it is crap that the linux-audit list is moderated, but unfortunately that isn't something I control (I haven't worked for RH in years, and even then the list owner was really weird about managing the list). Occasionally I grumble about moving the kernel audit development to a linux-audit list on vger but haven't bothered yet, perhaps this is as good a reason as any. Richard, Steve - any chance of opening the linux-audit list? -- paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists