Re: [PATCH 1/1] audit: Add new syscalls to the perm=w filter

[Steve Grubb <sgrubb@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