Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210126164108.1958-1-casey@schaufler-ca.com> <20210126164108.1958-22-casey@schaufler-ca.com>
 <20210126184246.GM1762914@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <e9140e2a-a6ca-9d51-9db4-a0ec0dfd56cc@schaufler-ca.com>
In-Reply-To: <e9140e2a-a6ca-9d51-9db4-a0ec0dfd56cc@schaufler-ca.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 15:05:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRFQDoNwhdLf4FEJKZzrVq3a5nnAkWS373JSbabdj3Pow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v24 21/25] audit: add support for non-syscall auxiliary records
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>, casey.schaufler@intel.com,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-audit@redhat.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:58 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/26/2021 10:42 AM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 2021-01-26 08:41, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >> Standalone audit records have the timestamp and serial number generated
> >> on the fly and as such are unique, making them standalone.  This new
> >> function audit_alloc_local() generates a local audit context that will
> >> be used only for a standalone record and its auxiliary record(s).  The
> >> context is discarded immediately after the local associated records are
> >> produced.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> >> Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com
> >> To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
> > This has been minorly bothering me for several revisions...  Is there a
> > way for the development/authorship to be accurately reflected
> > if/when this patch is merged before the contid patch set?
>
> I don't know the right way to do that because I had to pull
> some of what was in the original patch out. Any way you would
> like it done is fine with me.

I'm not sure if there is one perfect way.  I typically see either a
"From: " line if the author is different from the submitter, or in
more complex cases such as this it seems like a simple note giving
credit in the description might be the best option.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com