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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:47:38 -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>, Linux Security Module list <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak120 V5] audit: trigger accompanying records when no rules present On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:49 AM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote: > On 2020-09-23 10:29, Paul Moore wrote: > > I've gone over this revision a couple of times now and it looks okay, > > but past experience is whispering in my ear that perhaps this is > > better to wait on this for the next cycle so it gets a full set of > > -rcX releases. Thoughts? > > I thought I had lots of time since we were just at the end of the > previous cycle when this failed the previous time... Ran out yet > again... (there were two weeks of PTO and a devel system rebuild in > there somewhere...) We are at -rc6 and assuming v5.9 is released after -rc7 that would give this roughly a week and a half in v5.9-rcX; considering the history of this patch (reverted, obvious problems in development) I'm not confident -rc6 provides enough soak time (even if we go to -rc8 I remain skeptical). In addition, we've got a history of not taking new work that isn't a bug-fix past the -rc5/-rc6 timeframe. This is why I'm debating holding this until after the merge window. > It isn't my call. I asked for your thoughts on the matter, surely you have the liberty to comment on your own opinion :) -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists