Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
kernel/auditsc.c between commit b24a30a73054 ("audit: fix event coverage
of AUDIT_ANOM_LINK") from Linus' tree and commit "audit: fix mq_open and
mq_unlink to add the MQ root as a hidden parent audit_names record" from
the akpm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).
BTW, commit b24a30a73054 from Linus' tree has Eric Paris as Author and
Committer, but is only Signed-off-by Kees Cook. It is part of a long
series that did not go anywhere near linus-next. I do have an audit
tree in linux-next
(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/audit.git#for-next)
but that hasn't seen any recent activity.
There is also another commit in that series that doesn't even have a
Signed-off-by line at all (4d3fb709b285 "helper for some session id
stuff").
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
diff --cc kernel/auditsc.c
index 3c8a601,f9eaa16..0000000
--- a/kernel/auditsc.c
+++ b/kernel/auditsc.c
@@@ -1399,8 -1695,11 +1399,11 @@@ static void audit_log_exit(struct audit
}
i = 0;
- list_for_each_entry(n, &context->names_list, list)
+ list_for_each_entry(n, &context->names_list, list) {
+ if (n->hidden)
+ continue;
- audit_log_name(context, n, i++, &call_panic);
+ audit_log_name(context, n, NULL, i++, &call_panic);
+ }
/* Send end of event record to help user space know we are finished */
ab = audit_log_start(context, GFP_KERNEL, AUDIT_EOE);
diff --git a/kernel/audit.h b/kernel/audit.h
index 1c95131..52dfbfc 100644
--- a/kernel/audit.h
+++ b/kernel/audit.h
@@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ struct audit_names {
struct audit_cap_data fcap;
unsigned int fcap_ver;
unsigned char type; /* record type */
+ bool hidden; /* don't log this record */
/*
* This was an allocated audit_names and not from the array of
* names allocated in the task audit context. Thus this name
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 12:07 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
> kernel/auditsc.c between commit b24a30a73054 ("audit: fix event coverage
> of AUDIT_ANOM_LINK") from Linus' tree and commit "audit: fix mq_open and
> mq_unlink to add the MQ root as a hidden parent audit_names record" from
> the akpm tree.
Actually, I've already picked the patch up for 3.11. So Andrew, you can
drop it.
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).
>
> BTW, commit b24a30a73054 from Linus' tree has Eric Paris as Author and
> Committer, but is only Signed-off-by Kees Cook. It is part of a long
> series that did not go anywhere near linus-next. I do have an audit
> tree in linux-next
> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/audit.git#for-next)
> but that hasn't seen any recent activity.
I thought I sent you a note asking for audit to get pulled into -next
quite a while back. I'll resend...
Hi Eric,
On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:11:10 -0400 Eric Paris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I thought I sent you a note asking for audit to get pulled into -next
> quite a while back. I'll resend...
You sent an email on Jan 4:
> I know that Al hates audit so I created a new audit tree and decided to
> start trying to allow him to avoid the problem whenever possible. So
> unless Al objects to me going around him except when I touch the VFS can
> you pull my new tree?
>
> git://git.infradead.org/users/eparis/audit.git
To which I replied:
> I really don't like getting new tree requests just as Linus is about to
> open the merge window. Al says he will look at this stuff and put it
> into his audit tree
> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/audit-current.git#for-next)
> by tomorrow, so I will wait for that.
>
> If you and Al come to some other arrangement, let me know.
I guess it fell through the cracks ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Eric Paris <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 12:07 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
>> kernel/auditsc.c between commit b24a30a73054 ("audit: fix event coverage
>> of AUDIT_ANOM_LINK") from Linus' tree and commit "audit: fix mq_open and
>> mq_unlink to add the MQ root as a hidden parent audit_names record" from
>> the akpm tree.
>
> Actually, I've already picked the patch up for 3.11. So Andrew, you can
> drop it.
>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>> is required).
>>
>> BTW, commit b24a30a73054 from Linus' tree has Eric Paris as Author and
>> Committer, but is only Signed-off-by Kees Cook. It is part of a long
>> series that did not go anywhere near linus-next. I do have an audit
>> tree in linux-next
>> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/audit.git#for-next)
>> but that hasn't seen any recent activity.
>
> I thought I sent you a note asking for audit to get pulled into -next
> quite a while back. I'll resend...
>
Hrm, how did the Author get mangled?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
-----Original Message-----
From: Kees Cook [[email protected]]
Received: Monday, 13 May 2013, 12:49am
To: Eric Paris [[email protected]]
CC: Stephen Rothwell [[email protected]]; Andrew Morton [[email protected]]; Linus [[email protected]]; Linux-Next [[email protected]]; LKML [[email protected]]; Jeff Layton [[email protected]]; Al Viro [[email protected]]
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with Linus' tree
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Eric Paris <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 12:07 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
>> kernel/auditsc.c between commit b24a30a73054 ("audit: fix event coverage
>> of AUDIT_ANOM_LINK") from Linus' tree and commit "audit: fix mq_open and
>> mq_unlink to add the MQ root as a hidden parent audit_names record" from
>> the akpm tree.
>
> Actually, I've already picked the patch up for 3.11. So Andrew, you can
> drop it.
>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>> is required).
>>
>> BTW, commit b24a30a73054 from Linus' tree has Eric Paris as Author and
>> Committer, but is only Signed-off-by Kees Cook. It is part of a long
>> series that did not go anywhere near linus-next. I do have an audit
>> tree in linux-next
>> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/audit.git#for-next)
>> but that hasn't seen any recent activity.
>
> I thought I sent you a note asking for audit to get pulled into -next
> quite a while back. I'll resend...
>
Hrm, how did the Author get mangled?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
-----Original Message-----
From: Kees Cook [[email protected]]
Received: Monday, 13 May 2013, 12:49am
To: Eric Paris [[email protected]]
CC: Stephen Rothwell [[email protected]]; Andrew Morton [[email protected]]; Linus [[email protected]]; Linux-Next [[email protected]]; LKML [[email protected]]; Jeff Layton [[email protected]]; Al Viro [[email protected]]
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with Linus' tree
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Eric Paris <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 12:07 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in
>> kernel/auditsc.c between commit b24a30a73054 ("audit: fix event coverage
>> of AUDIT_ANOM_LINK") from Linus' tree and commit "audit: fix mq_open and
>> mq_unlink to add the MQ root as a hidden parent audit_names record" from
>> the akpm tree.
>
> Actually, I've already picked the patch up for 3.11. So Andrew, you can
> drop it.
>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>> is required).
>>
>> BTW, commit b24a30a73054 from Linus' tree has Eric Paris as Author and
>> Committer, but is only Signed-off-by Kees Cook. It is part of a long
>> series that did not go anywhere near linus-next. I do have an audit
>> tree in linux-next
>> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/audit.git#for-next)
>> but that hasn't seen any recent activity.
>
> I thought I sent you a note asking for audit to get pulled into -next
> quite a while back. I'll resend...
>
Hrm, how did the Author get mangled?
I remember it having a conflict when I tried to merge it (someone else had changed the same area of the header file). So I used patch -p1 and fixed up the reject by hand. I wonder if I screwed up and used git commit -a instead of git am --resolved? That is 2 things I should have caught on final review I missed. :-(
Now to wait for everything else I screwed up...