Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] two suggested iouring op audit updates

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 1/27/23 3:53 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:46 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>> On 1/27/23 3:38 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 2:43 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/23 12:42 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:40 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.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.

Sure, but then it should be open. Or do separate postings or something.
CC'ing a closed list with open lists and sending email to people that
are not on that closed list is bad form.

-- 
Jens Axboe