cvm_tracing: Allow untagged tracing statements by default #1402
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
smalis-msft
added
the
backport_2505
mebersol
reviewed
May 22, 2025
| @@ -24,9 +24,9 @@ pub const CVM_ALLOWED: Empty = Empty; | |||
| /// not be logged out of a confidential environment. | |||
| pub const CVM_CONFIDENTIAL: Empty = Empty; | |||
|
|
|||
| /// A tracing filter that will only allow events that are marked as [`CVM_ALLOWED`]. | |||
| /// A tracing filter that will block events that are marked as [`CVM_CONFIDENTIAL`]. | |||
| pub fn confidential_event_filter<S: Subscriber>() -> impl Filter<S> { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this provide either filter, based on attested settings?
By default, we would have this (even if debugging is off):
FilterFn::new(move |m| m.fields().field("CVM_CONFIDENTIAL").is_none())
and in paranoid mode, still this:
FilterFn::new(move |m| m.fields().field("CVM_ALLOWED").is_some())
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can definitely do something like that, once you're back we should discuss on what the setting should look like.
smalis-msft
added a commit
to smalis-msft/openvmm
that referenced
this pull request
May 23, 2025
…1402) After long discussions we have decided to flip the default of our tracing filter, and to allow untagged tracing statements by default. We believe that the risks and costs of being unable to debug incidents in production are too high, and that we can manually scrub our tracing statements to ensure that no sensitive information is leaked. Part of microsoft#852.
smalis-msft
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 28, 2025
) After long discussions we have decided to flip the default of our tracing filter, and to allow untagged tracing statements by default. We believe that the risks and costs of being unable to debug incidents in production are too high, and that we can manually scrub our tracing statements to ensure that no sensitive information is leaked. Cherry-pick of #1402. Part of #852.
|
Backported in #1406 |
benhillis
added
backported_2505
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
After long discussions we have decided to flip the default of our tracing filter, and to allow untagged tracing statements by default. We believe that the risks and costs of being unable to debug incidents in production are too high, and that we can manually scrub our tracing statements to ensure that no sensitive information is leaked.
Part of #852.