On 2/10/23 9:52?AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:00 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 2/10/23 8:39?AM, Paul Moore wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 7:15 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2023-02-01 16:18, Paul Moore wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 3:34 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Call it whatever you want, but the details are often important at this >>> level of code, and when I see a patch author pushing back on verifying >>> that their patch is correct it makes me very skeptical. >> >> Maybe it isn't intended, but the replies have generally had a pretty >> condescending tone to them. That's not the best way to engage folks, and >> may very well be why people just kind of give up on it. Nobody likes >> debating one-liners forever, particularly not if it isn't inviting. > > I appreciate that you are coming from a different space, but I stand > by my comments. Of course you are welcome to your own opinion, but I > would encourage you to spend some time reading the audit mail archives > going back a few years before you make comments like the above ... or > not, that's your call; I recognize it is usually easier to criticize. I'm just saying how it was received on my end, you can take that as constructive feedback or ignore it. I don't need to read the archives for that as it is not related to anything but this thread, it was not meant to reflect a general concern outside of this thread. > On a quasi related note to the list/archives: unfortunately there was > continued resistance to opening up the linux-audit list so I've setup > audit@vger for upstream audit kernel work moving forward. The list > address in MAINTAINERS will get updated during the next merge window > so hopefully some of the problems you had in the beginning of this > discussion will be better in the future. OK good, I keep forgetting to delete it from the replies and get annoyed at the spam I get back... Thanks for fixing that going forward. >>> I really would have preferred that you held off from merging this >>> until this was resolved and ACK'd ... oh well. >> >> It's still top of tree. If you want to ack it, let me know and I'll add >> it. If you want to nak it, give me something concrete to work off of. > > I can't in good conscience ACK it without some comment from Richard > that he has traced the code paths; this shouldn't be surprising at > this point. I'm not going to NACK it or post a revert, I would have > done that already if I felt that was appropriate. Right now this > patch is in a gray area for me in that I suspect it is good, but I > can't ACK it without some comment that it has been properly > researched. Richard, can you do the due diligence here? Steve did say: "But madvise is advisory in nature. It is not security relevant. And a grep through the security directory doesn't turn up any hooks." Seems to me if we're not currently auditing madvise outside of io_uring, then why would we do it here? -- Jens Axboe
