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 <sgr...@redhat.com> > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Richard Guy Briggs <r...@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 -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
