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

[Jens Axboe]

On 1/27/23 4:08 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 6:02 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 1/27/23 3:53 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:46 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/23 3:38 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 2:43 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/23 12:42 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:40 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
> 
> Agree, that's why I said in my reply that it was crap that the
> linux-audit list is moderated and asked Richard/Steve to open it up.

And thanks for that, I just skipped it in the reply as it wasn't for
me.

-- 
Jens Axboe