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

Paul Moore
2015-01-22T21:25:24Z

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:23:44 AM Paul Moore wrote:
> 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 ...

Your experimental branch looks good to me, thanks.

--
paul moore
security @ redhat