From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH V10] fixup! audit: add audit by children of executable path Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:45:30 -0400 Message-ID: <4771859.lgjRgQqjhi@sifl> References: <5d3a6285b9302c3f579e15b589603eb2347ee5c8.1439036885.git.rgb@redhat.com> <3269736.cyCpyM8Kln@sifl> <20150810165354.GA15959@madcap2.tricolour.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150810165354.GA15959@madcap2.tricolour.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Richard Guy Briggs Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sgrubb@redhat.com, eparis@redhat.com, peter@hda3.com List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Monday, August 10, 2015 12:53:54 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > On 15/08/10, Paul Moore wrote: > > I'm still not convinced that we need to merge exe child filtering patch so > > I'm not going to apply this, or your v10 patch, at this point in time. > > If you want to hold on to the code in case you and/or Steve think you can > > convince me at a later date, you might as well merge this fixup patch > > into the v10 patch. > > I fixed the known problems and reposted it for reference and public > archive so that it wasn't buried privately in my tree. No problem, that's smart. I just wanted to respond so that there wasn't any confusion about the status of this patch; I figure everybody who takes the time to post a patch deserves a response, even if it is "no thanks". > Aside from the need for the child filtering patch, do the RCU treatments > here look reasonable? Yep, it looks reasonable to me. -- paul moore security @ redhat