Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Overhaul the audit filename handling

Sedat Dilek
2015-01-24T09:03:06Z

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 09:40:01PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 09:29:03PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:25:13PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
>> >
>> > > Your experimental branch looks good to me, thanks.
>> >
>> > Pushed into for-next; I'm probably going to move that stuff into a never-rebased
>> > branch, merged into for-next and safe to pull into your tree if you want to do
>> > something on top of that set.
>>
>> OK, vfs.git#getname is it; it's in never-to-be-rebased mode and it's merged
>> into vfs.git#for-next (as of right now; HEAD is 9ee4c4). If you need to do
>> something on top of that stuff, pulling vfs.git#getname is safe.
>
> Unfortunately, that thing was -rc2-based, leading to conflict with mainline
> in kernel/auditsc.c. My fault, I hadn't realized that "audit: create private
> file name copies when auditing inodes" in audit tree was, in fact, present in
> mainline. vfs.git#getname2 is -rc3-based, same resulting kernel/auditsc.c as
> in #getname. Please, use that. vfs.git#for-next merges from that one now,
> so tomorrow -next should have no problems from vfs.git...
>

I have tested vfs.git#getname2 on top of Linux v3.19-rc5-184-gc4e00f1
(plus block-loopmq patchset) and it boots fine on Ubuntu/precise
amd64.

Just curious, where will this audit-filename-handling overhaul go through?
Through Paul's audit-next or Al's vfs-next tree?

AFAICS, a new linux-next will be available on Monday (2015-01-26).
I try to retest with this.

- Sedat -