On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 2018-03-12 11:53, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On 2018-03-12 11:12, Paul Moore wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:31 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Audit link denied events for symlinks had duplicate PATH records rather >> >> > than just updating the existing PATH record. Update the symlink's PATH >> >> > record with the current dentry and inode information. >> >> > >> >> > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/21 >> >> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <r...@redhat.com> >> >> > --- >> >> > fs/namei.c | 1 + >> >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> >> >> Why didn't you include this in patch 4/4 like I asked during the >> >> previous review? >> > >> > Please see the last comment of: >> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2018-March/msg00070.html >> >> Yes, I just saw that ... I hadn't seen your replies on the v1 patches >> until I had finished reviewing v2. I just replied to that mail in the >> v1 thread, but basically you need to figure out what is necessary here >> and let us know. If I have to figure it out it likely isn't going to >> get done with enough soak time prior to the upcoming merge window. > > Steve? I was hoping you could chime in here. > > I'd just include it for completeness unless Steve thinks it will stand > on its own and doesn't want the overhead.
If that's the argument, I'd rather just include it. We've been burned by not including stuff in the past and fixing those omissions has proven to be a major source of contention. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
