Messages in this thread | | | From | Paul Moore <> | Date | Wed, 12 Dec 2018 07:57:41 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH ghak59 V3 0/4] audit: config_change normalizations and event record gathering |
| |
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:45 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote: > On 2018-12-11 18:26, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 5:41 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 2018-12-11 17:31, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:18 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > Richard Guy Briggs (4): > > > > > audit: give a clue what CONFIG_CHANGE op was involved > > > > > audit: add syscall information to CONFIG_CHANGE records > > > > > audit: hand taken context to audit_kill_trees for syscall logging > > > > > audit: extend config_change mark/watch/tree rule changes > > > > > > > > > > kernel/audit.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > > > > > kernel/audit.h | 4 ++-- > > > > > kernel/audit_fsnotify.c | 4 ++-- > > > > > kernel/audit_tree.c | 28 +++++++++++++++------------- > > > > > kernel/audit_watch.c | 8 +++++--- > > > > > kernel/auditfilter.c | 2 +- > > > > > kernel/auditsc.c | 12 ++++++------ > > > > > 7 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > In order to make sure expectations are set appropriately, as we are at > > > > -rc6 right now this is not something that would go into audit/next now > > > > (assuming everything looks okay on review), it would go into > > > > audit/next *after* the upcoming merge window. > > > > > > I agree it is a bit late for this. I wasn't expecting it to go in this > > > one. I'm filling the queue since I'm blocked on other review for > > > ghak81(5.5wks), ghak90(5.5wks), ghak100(3.5wks). ghak90 missed another > > > merge window. > > > > As discussed previously, GHAK81 > > (https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/81) is something > > that I consider part of the audit container ID work (GHAK90). I > > believe it's time to stop treating it as a separate issue. > > Fine by me. It was included in the ghak90 patchset this time and still > is in v5, waiting to get the questions replied to that arose out of the > review of v4 around Hallowe'en.
If you knew ([1]) I didn't want GHAK81 treated as a separate issue, but instead included as part of GHAK90, why did you bother separating it out in your latest nag emails?
[1]I didn't feel like digging through my sent mail to find out when we discussed this last so I could include a passive aggressive date, that exercise is left to the reader. I'm sure you'll understand.
-- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
| |