Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] fanotify,audit: Allow audit to use the full permission event response
Date:   Fri, 09 Sep 2022 00:03:53 -0400
Message-ID: <2254543.ElGaqSPkdT@x2>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <Yxqn6NVQr0jTQHiu@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
References: <cover.1659996830.git.rgb@redhat.com> <2254258.ElGaqSPkdT@x2> <Yxqn6NVQr0jTQHiu@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 10:41:44 PM EDT Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > 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}"

So how does this play out if there is another user? Do they want a num= and 
trust=  if not, then the AUDIT_FANOTIFY record will have multiple formats 
which is not good. I'd rather suggest something generic that can be 
interpreted based on who's attached to fanotify. IOW we have a fan_type=0 and 
then followed by info0= info1=  the interpretation of those solely depend on 
fan_type. If the fan_type does not need both, then any interpretation skips 
what it doesn't need. If fan_type=1, then it follows what arg0= and arg1= is 
for that format. But make this pivot on fan_type and not actual names.
 
> > > 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?

Please, let's keep AUDIT_FANOTIFY normalized but pivot on fan_type.

-Steve