linux-kernel - Re: Boot regression caused by kauditd

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSg7ALRCZGfCGySxREZqffZraRn4LqroDLcRKbBgNTaKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:26:31 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Boot regression caused by kauditd

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>>> In that case please send a proper inline patch to the audit mailing list
>>> and we'll review it.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> Now that I'm back in front of a proper screen/keyboard I've been
>> looking over your patch and while you are very right in that the
>> current RCU usage is very wrong, there are quite a few things I would
>> like to see changed in your patch ... I'm working on something right
>> now, I'll post an RFC draft to the audit list and CC you once I get
>> this sorted out, expect something in a few hours.
>>
>> Also, once you've had a look at this new patch, and assuming you are
>> okay with it, I'd like to add your sign-off to it.  This may not be
>> your patch exactly, but a significant portion of it is borrowed from
>> your patch yesterday.
>
> So your review process is: if people's V1 patch is not perfect, you
> will rewrite it by yourself?

As I mentioned earlier I didn't get a chance to properly review your
patch yesterday for two important reasons: 1) it hit my inbox at the
end of my day and I simply didn't have time and 2) you sent it as an
attachment which makes it hard to review and provide feedback.  I took
a closer look at your patch this morning and noticed a number of
things that needed additional work as well as some merge/porting
things; considering I never saw a response from you on my last email
asking for an inline patch submission and taking into account where we
are in the merge window (I'd like to submit this fix during the v4.12
merge window) I went ahead and put together a patch based on your
prototype.

You'll see I just posted it and CC'd you (our emails probably crossed
paths), asking if it was okay to add your sign-off and give you
credit.  I'm only trying to speed up the process.  There is no malice
here, I actually thought I was helping you out ... I suppose the old
adage rings true: no good deed goes unpunished ;)

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com