Re: [PATCH 1/2] auditsc: audit_krule mask accesses need bounds checking

[Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 16:36 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> >
> > In this particular case, it's my patch, and I've never sent you a pull
> > request.  I sort of assumed that security@kernel.org magically caused
> > acknowledged fixes to end up in your tree.  I'm not sure what I'm
> > supposed to do here.
> >
> > Maybe the confusion is because Eric resent the patch?
> 
> So I saw the patch twice in email , but neither time did I get the
> feeling that I should apply it. The first time Eric responded to it,
> so the maintainer clearly knew about it and was reacting to it, so I
> ignored it. The second time Eric resent it as email to various people
> and lists, and I didn't react to it because I expected that was again
> just for discussion.
> 
> So I'm not blaming you as much as Eric.

No, it's good to blame me.  I was trying to deal with it as fast as I
could since I was already trying to ignore my computer before I got
married last weekend and took the last week off.  I realized when I got
back yesterday you hadn't picked it up and it was on my list of things
to try to handle today.  I think both 1 and 2 are good to be applied to
your tree.  Although only #1 is really an absolutely critical issue.

>  If a maintainer expects me to
> pick it up from the email (rather than his usual git pulls), I want
> that maintainer to *say* so. Because otherwise, as mentioned, I expect
> it to come through the maintainer tree as usual.
> 
>               Linus