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
In-Reply-To: <1785304.d0a7c0oaZ9@x2>
References: <fa0938a05c2d783556d67d4dafef208b156a35ad.1503484357.git.rgb@redhat.com>
 <CAHC9VhQMzR06Tqr8WNDuV9zgnDfH8reaKam+e_sAFCm1ZK3QQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171109205246.ohro2gbsnvc7hpij@madcap2.tricolour.ca> <1785304.d0a7c0oaZ9@x2>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:01:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSd8ftho=vRLr_jQQVxA9LK+7zrDyKcoYvRCM-sCoz7ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ALT4 V3 1/2] audit: show fstype:pathname for entries with
 anonymous parents
To:     Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>,
        Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2017 3:52:46 PM EST Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
>> > >> > It might be simplest to just apply a corrective patch over top of
>> > >> > this one so that you don't have to muck about with git branches and
>> > >> > commit messages.
>> > >>
>> > >> A quick note on the "corrective patch": given we are just days away
>> > >> from the merge window opening, it is *way* to late for something like
>> > >> that, at this point the only options are to leave it as-is or
>> > >> yank/revert and make another pass during the next development phase.
>> > >
>> > > Then yank it. I think that is overreacting but given the options you
>> > > presented its the only one that avoids changing a critical field
>> > > format.
>> >
>> > It's not overreacting Steve, there is simply no way we can test and
>> > adequately soak new changes in the few days we have left.
>
> Its just moving the output of the information a few lines down further in the
> code. 10 minutes of work, tops.

It's like you don't even bother reading why I write ... it's not about
the amount of time needed to make the change, it's the other stuff I
mentioned.  Regardless, it's a moot point now, the patch is out and it
isn't going up in the currently open merge window.

>> > Event yanks/reverts carry a risk at this stage, but I consider that the
>> > less risky option for these patches.  Neither is a great option, and that
>> > is why I'm rather annoyed.
>>
>> I don't really see that this is my choice to include it or not.  This is
>> the upstream maintainer's decision.
>>
>> I can't say I'd be thrilled to have my name on something that stuffs up
>> the system though.  It still isn't clear to me why an incomplete path
>> from some seemingly random place in the filesystem tree is preferable to
>> something that gives it an anchor point, at least to human interpreters.
>
> The path should stay. Just the file system type needs decoupling and moving.

See my previous comments about relative pathnames, specifially the
part about me not being a fan of them in the PATH records.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

From 1583976744161013484@xxx Mon Nov 13 18:32:18 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1576519731154696149
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread