Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1542149969.git.rgb@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <cover.1542149969.git.rgb@redhat.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:03:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhT8iFLSXJBvocg_aPeveBy0hZ4bxZ547ufbUsTnkONpZg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH ghak100 V1 0/2] audit: avoid umount hangs on missing mount
To:     rgb@redhat.com
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com,
        Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>, sgrubb@redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:34 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On user and remote filesystems, a forced umount can still hang due to
> attemting to fetch the fcaps of a mounted filesystem that is no longer
> available.
>
> These two patches take different approaches to address this, one by
> avoiding the lookup when the MNT_FORCE flag is included, the other by
> providing a method to filter out auditing specified types of filesystems.
>
> This can happen on ceph, cifs, 9p, lustre, fuse (gluster) or NFS.
>
> Arguably the better way to address this issue is to disable auditing
> processes that touch removable filesystems.
> Please see the github issue tracker
> https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/100
>
> Richard Guy Briggs (2):
>   audit: avoid fcaps on MNT_FORCE
>   audit: moar filter PATH records keyed on filesystem magic
>
>  fs/namei.c            |  2 +-
>  fs/namespace.c        |  3 +++
>  include/linux/audit.h |  8 ++++++--
>  kernel/audit.c        |  5 +++--
>  kernel/audit.h        |  2 +-
>  kernel/auditsc.c      | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  6 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

Just to get this out of the way, don't use "moar", spell it properly.

Beyond that, it's not clear to me from your cover letter if you are
proposing these patches as an "or" or as an "and"; assuming the
patch(es) are reasonable, do you want us to merge both of these
patches, or only the one we like the most?

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com