From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] audit: Add new syscalls to the perm=w filter
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:47:13 -0400
Message-ID: <9211761.sExSPrCt1u@x2>
References: <3684595.EFLXjLr4XY@x2>
	<20171016190620.mhywfjfwvfogls2j@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
	<CAHC9VhQTNmzi+Noj8mnhWE-jAKgGZwj36ZyCO9SRp+01-V9j=g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhQTNmzi+Noj8mnhWE-jAKgGZwj36ZyCO9SRp+01-V9j=g@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/options/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-audit@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
To: linux-audit@redhat.com
Cc: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

On Monday, October 16, 2017 3:15:03 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote:
> >> > The audit subsystem allows selecting audit events based on watches for
> >> > a particular behavior like writing to a file. A lot of syscalls have
> >> > been added without updating the list. This patch adds 2 syscalls to the
> >> > write filters: fallocate and renameat2.
> >> > 
> >> > Signed-off-by: sgrubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
> >> 
> >> Reviewed-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
> > 
> > Please add a link to the issue number in the body of the patch
> > description:
> > 
> > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/67
> 
> FWIW, I don't really care if the upstream issue is included in the
> submitted patch; if you want to include it - great, if you don't -
> that's fine too.  The commit description needs to stand on its own,
> regardless of any external issue trackers, mailing lists, etc.

I honestly don't know what the protocol is here. Should I resend the patch 
with that or is that fixed up in the merge process? The reason I ask is on the 
user space side I never make anyone resend a patch unless its grossly wrong or 
incomplete. I just fix it. But that's what I do and not everyone works that 
way.

> I'm guessing based on your constant reminders that Steve has gotten
> the message at this point that you would really prefer he added the
> issue tracker numbers;

I get it, but in the case of the bind/unbind I didn't even know there was a 
tracker.

-Steve