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

Paul Moore
2015-01-22T16:23:55Z

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