From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D867207670 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:18:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733498287; cv=none; b=D7Pmfj7EvhezvPELAoQWyUw2HUzX/tIj5tN/QfyU1dJJpEaR066RpTjloRE6/ejfVO7X/muvEXSNML/cAZyPFlq7OGAugoxH/7LqtUUG4nQCAYLi4vg4qpChRW0P5x10TOxDnoyEClOKZ6sAPlqgl8oM7XGs9mpPSg59glcCpTQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733498287; c=relaxed/simple; bh=M6n7gPD47dzEJe0d8hoe4pDtgbueIbnYzY7yUOviywY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Uglk4AGbZVbShKlb1F/8M+iUxDXF/n7p60Jo1hrHqjdCezilj3B33nf2QAe5W1bmFi97vTdO8NmxQvvKsoUP+3GdhdRwTQUW/c9mVPibBlIolBmlMZhYOfR5fiUD+7vqXhCHXCsi/7p3vbCtNtJj25vAGc1RAcpXkY9EYJ5KW9w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=N8ZZOryt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="N8ZZOryt" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1733498284; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mKtDgslHIZKXRNcgKxnSMRYZ3DfiXrsFNAN0u9Bq20k=; b=N8ZZOrytlRfdoTJ4Yt6td2IyIMjHwyVfWKyk381YNUOVW0uoOuMhrQCEAP79JthARmxEEF Bxl/yJzJGpx8q8UREI+LVtZos+D/iDIy8E7Xi9eUhKX5dhPWipL7KbE5sLKeC7P1UGP8Lk qZ9RX/3Q4qiGTNjtm4/yoojmYEbdXTU= Received: from mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-68-qX_FQXSmMAm8oFoqnvoFrg-1; Fri, 06 Dec 2024 10:18:01 -0500 X-MC-Unique: qX_FQXSmMAm8oFoqnvoFrg-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: qX_FQXSmMAm8oFoqnvoFrg Received: from mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1DA01955DB4; Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:17:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from madcap2.tricolour.ca (unknown [10.22.58.13]) by mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B7D919560AA; Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:17:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 10:17:53 -0500 From: Richard Guy Briggs To: Ricardo Robaina Cc: Paul Moore , audit@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eparis@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] audit: fix suffixed '/' filename matching in __audit_inode_child() Message-ID: References: <20241122121843.641573-1-rrobaina@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: audit@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.15 On 2024-12-06 10:00, Ricardo Robaina wrote: > On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 9:22 PM Paul Moore wrote: > > > > Yes, Richard did provide a reviewed-by tag on the v1 patch, but v2 has > > enough changes that I don't think we can reasonably carry that forward; > > of course Richard re-review this iteration and provide a new tag. I'm > > going to remove it for now. > > > > Al never provided an explicit reviewed-by tag; simply commenting on a > > patch is not the same as providing a 'Reviewed-by', the reviewer will > > provide an explicit 'Reviewed-by' tag in their email. I'm going to > > remove Al's tag too. > > I'm sorry about that, I was just trying to give credit to the ones who > helped. Thanks for clarifying the expected review process, I > appreciate it! Please re-add my reviewed-by tag. > > Other than those issues, I think this looks much better than v1, I'm > > going to merge this into audit/dev now, thanks! > > Thanks, Paul! > > - Ricardo - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada Upstream IRC: SunRaycer Voice: +1.613.860 2354 SMS: +1.613.518.6570