From:   Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>,
        Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>, Stefan Roesch <shr@fb.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] two suggested iouring op audit updates
Date:   Sat, 28 Jan 2023 11:47:56 -0500
Message-ID: <12151218.O9o76ZdvQC@x2>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhRpu7WZDqWKcLDj18A0Z5FJdUU=eUL3wbJH1CnEBWB4GA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cover.1674682056.git.rgb@redhat.com>
 <d9da8035-ed81-fb28-bf3a-f98c8a1e044a@kernel.dk>
 <CAHC9VhRpu7WZDqWKcLDj18A0Z5FJdUU=eUL3wbJH1CnEBWB4GA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Friday, January 27, 2023 5:53:24 PM EST Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:46 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> > On 1/27/23 3:38=E2=80=AFPM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 2:43 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> > >> On 1/27/23 12:42=E2=80=AFPM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:40 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> > >>>> On 1/27/23 10:23=E2=80=AFAM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > >>>>> A couple of updates to the iouring ops audit bypass selections
> > >>>>> suggested in consultation with Steve Grubb.
> > >>>>>=20
> > >>>>> Richard Guy Briggs (2):
> > >>>>>   io_uring,audit: audit IORING_OP_FADVISE but not IORING_OP_MADVI=
SE
> > >>>>>   io_uring,audit: do not log IORING_OP_*GETXATTR
> > >>>>> =20
> > >>>>>  io_uring/opdef.c | 4 +++-
> > >>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>>>=20
> > >>>> 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.
> > >>>=20
> > >>> Please hold off until I've had a chance to look them over ...
> > >>=20
> > >> I haven't taken anything yet, for things like this I always let it
> > >> simmer until people have had a chance to do so.
> > >=20
> > > 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.
> >=20
> > Sounds fair. BTW, can we stop CC'ing closed lists on patch
> > submissions? Getting these:
> >=20
> > Your message to Linux-audit awaits moderator approval
> >=20
> > on every reply is really annoying.
>=20
> We kinda need audit related stuff on the linux-audit list, that's our
> mailing list for audit stuff.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Richard, Steve - any chance of opening the linux-audit list?

Unfortunately, it really has to be this way. I deleted 10 spam emails=20
yesterday. It seems like some people subscribed to this list are compromise=
d.=20
Because everytime there is a legit email, it's followed in a few seconds by=
 a=20
spam email.

Anyways, all legit email will be approved without needing to be subscribed.

=2DSteve