From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752304AbaFJMvF (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:51:05 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:4877 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751834AbaFJMvD (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:51:03 -0400 Message-ID: <1402404640.4456.4.camel@flatline.rdu.redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] auditsc: audit_krule mask accesses need bounds checking From: Eric Paris To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Greg KH , linux-audit@redhat.com, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , stable Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:50:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1401332999-15167-1-git-send-email-eparis@redhat.com> <20140609223057.GB18475@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 16:36 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > > In this particular case, it's my patch, and I've never sent you a pull > > request. I sort of assumed that security@kernel.org magically caused > > acknowledged fixes to end up in your tree. I'm not sure what I'm > > supposed to do here. > > > > Maybe the confusion is because Eric resent the patch? > > So I saw the patch twice in email , but neither time did I get the > feeling that I should apply it. The first time Eric responded to it, > so the maintainer clearly knew about it and was reacting to it, so I > ignored it. The second time Eric resent it as email to various people > and lists, and I didn't react to it because I expected that was again > just for discussion. > > So I'm not blaming you as much as Eric. No, it's good to blame me. I was trying to deal with it as fast as I could since I was already trying to ignore my computer before I got married last weekend and took the last week off. I realized when I got back yesterday you hadn't picked it up and it was on my list of things to try to handle today. I think both 1 and 2 are good to be applied to your tree. Although only #1 is really an absolutely critical issue. > If a maintainer expects me to > pick it up from the email (rather than his usual git pulls), I want > that maintainer to *say* so. Because otherwise, as mentioned, I expect > it to come through the maintainer tree as usual. > > Linus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Paris Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] auditsc: audit_krule mask accesses need bounds checking Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:50:40 -0400 Message-ID: <1402404640.4456.4.camel@flatline.rdu.redhat.com> References: <1401332999-15167-1-git-send-email-eparis@redhat.com> <20140609223057.GB18475@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Greg KH , linux-audit@redhat.com, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , stable , Andy Lutomirski List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 16:36 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > > In this particular case, it's my patch, and I've never sent you a pull > > request. I sort of assumed that security@kernel.org magically caused > > acknowledged fixes to end up in your tree. I'm not sure what I'm > > supposed to do here. > > > > Maybe the confusion is because Eric resent the patch? > > So I saw the patch twice in email , but neither time did I get the > feeling that I should apply it. The first time Eric responded to it, > so the maintainer clearly knew about it and was reacting to it, so I > ignored it. The second time Eric resent it as email to various people > and lists, and I didn't react to it because I expected that was again > just for discussion. > > So I'm not blaming you as much as Eric. No, it's good to blame me. I was trying to deal with it as fast as I could since I was already trying to ignore my computer before I got married last weekend and took the last week off. I realized when I got back yesterday you hadn't picked it up and it was on my list of things to try to handle today. I think both 1 and 2 are good to be applied to your tree. Although only #1 is really an absolutely critical issue. > If a maintainer expects me to > pick it up from the email (rather than his usual git pulls), I want > that maintainer to *say* so. Because otherwise, as mentioned, I expect > it to come through the maintainer tree as usual. > > Linus