linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH ghak21 V2 2/4] audit: link denied should not directly generate PATH record

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 11:56:38 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linux-Audit Mailing List <linux-audit@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak21 V2 2/4] audit: link denied should not directly
 generate PATH record

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 2018-03-12 11:05, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:31 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > Audit link denied events generate duplicate PATH records which disagree
>> > in different ways from symlink and hardlink denials.
>> > audit_log_link_denied() should not directly generate PATH records.
>> > While we're at it, remove the now useless struct path argument.
>> >
>> > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/21
>> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
>> > ---
>> >  fs/namei.c            |  2 +-
>> >  include/linux/audit.h |  6 ++----
>> >  kernel/audit.c        | 17 ++---------------
>> >  3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> I have no objection to the v2 change of removing the link parameter,
>> but this patch can not be merged as-is because the v1 patch has
>> already been merged into audit/next (as stated on the mailing list).
>
> Yes, I self-NACKed that patch.
>
>         https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2018-March/msg00070.html
>
> Is it not possible to drop it, or would you have to do a revert to avoid
> a rebase?

Yes, it is possible to drop a patch from the audit/next patch stack,
but dropping patches is considered *very* bad form and not something I
want to do without a Very Good Reason.  While the v2 patch is the
"right" patch, the v1 patch is not dangerous, so I would rather you
just build on top of what is currently in audit/next.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com