From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DAFAC4708F for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 05:05:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DAAC61159 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 05:05:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230034AbhFDFHf (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jun 2021 01:07:35 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-f49.google.com ([209.85.218.49]:33318 "EHLO mail-ej1-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229801AbhFDFHf (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jun 2021 01:07:35 -0400 Received: by mail-ej1-f49.google.com with SMTP id g20so12620790ejt.0 for ; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 22:05:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=F4KNkxgVBE2IaKKrWIflXpiMTxbcNGtO3JcMgEhgrn4=; b=o94bs7U9IPq9Pa1huceut2mtx1/qS1BIzr2m7/D0ElSnvLcgt/EZJzk5KB3yZ4Skz8 o90x3f6tanRZ1P65uIu/7LtBEKoZ7BXvggS5EGo5YSO41QLKC9oI16QIQhUwg4JOUL8d JslQuUfN6xT67ucLy6w+SLo2zZNYLDC7n4wH/8coHXDqIRphosK91tA1d/iUaT/itW40 TzTUGjHJH7VgOgntc+QjbNxfCSId1gNZ2lzAIOvt2s1XPzUirumPWP9K/SmySReNkdOi uJNHPw5+1cE6NMrrKaEyRYIH3hizdNeDjUGUKNZlCY/Vi/Z1SEPuW1foC3jGUA2xY2cy PYfA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=F4KNkxgVBE2IaKKrWIflXpiMTxbcNGtO3JcMgEhgrn4=; b=qDJfAKOxtB+11PXo1hD5kGBnSJJiKA0wNmpuUfSpIFaRF8sDqB1h+kvwnJhc0GoNL9 wAuX3eBUE+Y905AzkTgjkq2Jg0CewVNBPpZSUq6gzdU7V301eh5hYoa6/jW1FiK5lZ67 yGxkihI4iGZ2sr391rjoMhPPUBUdMjCYNdbui8f6XmQO5aY8S+ClB+YcMQ1Isms0KWti LcDqtlLHDPvCfYm4fNsH6WuF7TEi2hCSu6ybJsFiaQ81cxryxVq/nBlcOvzlQq5pxGU8 jEjOL+UblmimCykGir5T5TpluVTTjlv5XGHZtXr1XKCynq/t/zMFQzZroB4si6+Tc1Kw QfWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531C8P+3JVgLUzaWbmUBgSqgRm7/Ma6UT3QwMnyrhAQb5KMNwIVx lW75cNjRcDkqghsrA7oxh/jffHfVRPf54TlCisWL X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwJrbIpifPHt0RmxDhbFGonFTcmrxomuiF8TJjro/LYRcNy1Ukcm+dNkb4N5xI5Zs6y+uH7Kz1ctjm94ABTP34= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4111:: with SMTP id j17mr2438703ejk.488.1622783076402; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 22:04:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <162163367115.8379.8459012634106035341.stgit@sifl> <162163379461.8379.9691291608621179559.stgit@sifl> <162219f9-7844-0c78-388f-9b5c06557d06@gmail.com> <8943629d-3c69-3529-ca79-d7f8e2c60c16@kernel.dk> <9e69e4b6-2b87-a688-d604-c7f70be894f5@kernel.dk> <3bef7c8a-ee70-d91d-74db-367ad0137d00@kernel.dk> <46381e4e-a65d-f217-1d0d-43d1fa8a99aa@kernel.dk> In-Reply-To: <46381e4e-a65d-f217-1d0d-43d1fa8a99aa@kernel.dk> From: Paul Moore Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 01:04:25 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit,io_uring,io-wq: add some basic audit support to io_uring To: Jens Axboe Cc: Pavel Begunkov , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi , Alexander Viro Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 11:54 AM Jens Axboe wrote: > On 5/28/21 10:02 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 4:19 PM Paul Moore wrote: > >> ... If we moved the _entry > >> and _exit calls into the individual operation case blocks (quick > >> openat example below) so that only certain operations were able to be > >> audited would that be acceptable assuming the high frequency ops were > >> untouched? My initial gut feeling was that this would involve >50% of > >> the ops, but Steve Grubb seems to think it would be less; it may be > >> time to look at that a bit more seriously, but if it gets a NACK > >> regardless it isn't worth the time - thoughts? > >> > >> case IORING_OP_OPENAT: > >> audit_uring_entry(req->opcode); > >> ret = io_openat(req, issue_flags); > >> audit_uring_exit(!ret, ret); > >> break; > > > > I wanted to pose this question again in case it was lost in the > > thread, I suspect this may be the last option before we have to "fix" > > things at the Kconfig level. I definitely don't want to have to go > > that route, and I suspect most everyone on this thread feels the same, > > so I'm hopeful we can find a solution that is begrudgingly acceptable > > to both groups. > > Sorry for the lack of response here, but to sum up my order of > preference: > > 1) It's probably better to just make the audit an opt-out in io_op_defs > for each opcode, and avoid needing boiler plate code for each op > handler. The opt-out would ensure that new opcodes get it by default > it someone doesn't know what it is, and the io_op_defs addition would > mean that it's in generic code rather then in the handlers. Yes it's > a bit slower, but it's saner imho. > > 2) With the above, I'm fine with adding this to io_uring. I don't think > going the route of mutual exclusion in kconfig helps anyone, it'd > be counter productive to both sides. > > Hope that works and helps move this forward. I'll be mostly out of touch > the next week and a half, but wanted to ensure that I sent out my > (brief) thoughts before going away. Thanks Jens. I'll revise the patchset based on this (basically doing an opt-out version of what you did on May 26th) and do a v2 post with the other accumulated fixes/changes. If there is anything else that needs discussion/review I'm sure Pavel can help us out, he's been helpful thus far. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25611C47083 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 05:05:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC95361159 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 05:05:58 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AC95361159 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=paul-moore.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=tempfail smtp.mailfrom=linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-28-tthRYbSwM_K-TAKIqI3qOw-1; Fri, 04 Jun 2021 01:05:56 -0400 X-MC-Unique: tthRYbSwM_K-TAKIqI3qOw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B8B21854E27; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 05:05:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33F4610013D6; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 05:05:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7590C44A58; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 05:05:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 15455mYd015112 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 01:05:48 -0400 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id 3433A21202C8; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 05:05:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast06.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.22]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B1EC211D8BD for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 05:05:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF9701825065 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 05:05:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ej1-f49.google.com (mail-ej1-f49.google.com [209.85.218.49]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-550-3DT3ekrNMoyvaL29plFm1g-1; Fri, 04 Jun 2021 01:04:37 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 3DT3ekrNMoyvaL29plFm1g-1 Received: by mail-ej1-f49.google.com with SMTP id h24so12586930ejy.2 for ; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 22:04:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=F4KNkxgVBE2IaKKrWIflXpiMTxbcNGtO3JcMgEhgrn4=; b=GMl7BA2GG9imP0i0mwH2ilE9J3kPLGuXNtHByqB6sbMJ6pbRn98lKZGSSRI7PzKS0G Pu7cMyQEUqSa8HN9PgDbW1F5Ao390ci4Hsild2JLJOJQGg4tjHFliHgIgqVvo1KJfQWV oNT67pNZd+m2EWJh6Vg7Zd6EpRyAI2iGFTrDnLnKcQrRIxUCfZ4kf2xudAjgymvNQFAU 0HJ72j+RKggl1zHCnGnuV0ffKmjHNyNSJccObpKC6n/iEB4NZj0LviUxGAVL04Kj4Ar0 gA8aH5w5MRKpehq3PN7/Fxe73LEOu9RwxwHAmp+GkmStrbft3wKbPppZYOF70mukymgn J2Ew== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531kN7iEFQDEOZ7brrZxHZHkEwS/VezoZmdxJ8Gsn6Mkm/9G5L2A W8I+tvuwLMS5eRzNnbaakFmpJyk5LEOMVV9n5btN X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwJrbIpifPHt0RmxDhbFGonFTcmrxomuiF8TJjro/LYRcNy1Ukcm+dNkb4N5xI5Zs6y+uH7Kz1ctjm94ABTP34= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4111:: with SMTP id j17mr2438703ejk.488.1622783076402; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 22:04:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <162163367115.8379.8459012634106035341.stgit@sifl> <162163379461.8379.9691291608621179559.stgit@sifl> <162219f9-7844-0c78-388f-9b5c06557d06@gmail.com> <8943629d-3c69-3529-ca79-d7f8e2c60c16@kernel.dk> <9e69e4b6-2b87-a688-d604-c7f70be894f5@kernel.dk> <3bef7c8a-ee70-d91d-74db-367ad0137d00@kernel.dk> <46381e4e-a65d-f217-1d0d-43d1fa8a99aa@kernel.dk> In-Reply-To: <46381e4e-a65d-f217-1d0d-43d1fa8a99aa@kernel.dk> From: Paul Moore Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 01:04:25 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit,io_uring,io-wq: add some basic audit support to io_uring To: Jens Axboe X-Mimecast-Impersonation-Protect: Policy=CLT - Impersonation Protection Definition; Similar Internal Domain=false; Similar Monitored External Domain=false; Custom External Domain=false; Mimecast External Domain=false; Newly Observed Domain=false; Internal User Name=false; Custom Display Name List=false; Reply-to Address Mismatch=false; Targeted Threat Dictionary=false; Mimecast Threat Dictionary=false; Custom Threat Dictionary=false X-Mimecast-Bulk-Signature: yes X-Mimecast-Spam-Signature: bulk X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.4 X-loop: linux-audit@redhat.com Cc: selinux@vger.kernel.org, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Begunkov , Alexander Viro X-BeenThere: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk List-Id: Linux Audit Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 11:54 AM Jens Axboe wrote: > On 5/28/21 10:02 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 4:19 PM Paul Moore wrote: > >> ... If we moved the _entry > >> and _exit calls into the individual operation case blocks (quick > >> openat example below) so that only certain operations were able to be > >> audited would that be acceptable assuming the high frequency ops were > >> untouched? My initial gut feeling was that this would involve >50% of > >> the ops, but Steve Grubb seems to think it would be less; it may be > >> time to look at that a bit more seriously, but if it gets a NACK > >> regardless it isn't worth the time - thoughts? > >> > >> case IORING_OP_OPENAT: > >> audit_uring_entry(req->opcode); > >> ret = io_openat(req, issue_flags); > >> audit_uring_exit(!ret, ret); > >> break; > > > > I wanted to pose this question again in case it was lost in the > > thread, I suspect this may be the last option before we have to "fix" > > things at the Kconfig level. I definitely don't want to have to go > > that route, and I suspect most everyone on this thread feels the same, > > so I'm hopeful we can find a solution that is begrudgingly acceptable > > to both groups. > > Sorry for the lack of response here, but to sum up my order of > preference: > > 1) It's probably better to just make the audit an opt-out in io_op_defs > for each opcode, and avoid needing boiler plate code for each op > handler. The opt-out would ensure that new opcodes get it by default > it someone doesn't know what it is, and the io_op_defs addition would > mean that it's in generic code rather then in the handlers. Yes it's > a bit slower, but it's saner imho. > > 2) With the above, I'm fine with adding this to io_uring. I don't think > going the route of mutual exclusion in kconfig helps anyone, it'd > be counter productive to both sides. > > Hope that works and helps move this forward. I'll be mostly out of touch > the next week and a half, but wanted to ensure that I sent out my > (brief) thoughts before going away. Thanks Jens. I'll revise the patchset based on this (basically doing an opt-out version of what you did on May 26th) and do a v2 post with the other accumulated fixes/changes. If there is anything else that needs discussion/review I'm sure Pavel can help us out, he's been helpful thus far. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit