linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH ghak120 V5] audit: trigger accompanying records when no rules present

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTBxdtC8YF_Vze54WQgfhf3kH+2RAGnsjzf2whwJw8SOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 21:26:14 -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 1:47 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> 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 :)

I never heard back on this, but the patch is in audit/next now.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com