From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Overhaul the audit filename handling Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:23:44 -0500 Message-ID: <4011794.crgx99Gu8a@sifl> References: <20150122045303.1347.98054.stgit@localhost> <54C08C62.8010609@roeck-us.net> <20150122075429.GV29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Guenter Roeck , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, rgb@redhat.com, sd@queasysnail.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150122075429.GV29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thursday, January 22, 2015 07:54:29 AM Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 09:36:34PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On 01/21/2015 08:59 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > >This patchset has some important changes from the previous revision, > > >namely a fix from Al Viro (included in 2/5) that resolves a boot panic > > >on some systems as well as some smaller, less noteworthy fixes found > > >in the linux-next announcement thread from January 20th (refcount bump > > >in __audit_reusename() and a inode type in __audit_inode()). > > > > > >This patchset still needs some additional testing to verify that the > > >audit code still functions properly (the minor fixes mentioned above) > > >and there is an additional patch from Al that should be included as > > >well, but I wanted to post this and push the series to the audit next > > >branch quickly since a number of folks were affected by the boot panic. > > > > > >--- > > > > > >Paul Moore (5): > > > fs: rework getname_kernel to handle up to PATH_MAX sized filenames > > > fs: create proper filename objects using getname_kernel() > > > audit: enable filename recording via getname_kernel() > > > audit: fix filename matching in __audit_inode() and > > > __audit_inode_child() > > > audit: replace getname()/putname() hacks with reference counters > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > What is the baseline for this patch set ? Obviously -next won't work, > > and it does not apply to mainline either. > > FWIW, I've ported that on top of vfs.git#for-next; result is in > vfs.git#experimental. Paul, are you OK with that one? Okay, hang on let me test that ... -- paul moore security @ redhat