From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38437C43387 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 20:12:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F185820675 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 20:12:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="T3EdRF6w" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727806AbfACUMl (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2019 15:12:41 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-f193.google.com ([209.85.208.193]:42265 "EHLO mail-lj1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726937AbfACUMk (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2019 15:12:40 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-f193.google.com with SMTP id l15-v6so30706151lja.9 for ; Thu, 03 Jan 2019 12:12:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3HRbx+kANi/LpX7QSrBgebnH4xitj7ViR0/Kwe3qcrM=; b=T3EdRF6wAwt0dsopDCHCKHC+2B1tLHJxrZiZYiDLnubB73dt40CrrtURGkdWIS7xzs 2PJBNE3NTkImdT8t/jWGPsdvaWmA7dJwvOlBLe/SKyL+NzkfYlXV6YpIY7bRF6EIS1H6 f81UURnqW1bT6pD911GUteKYCzDN3yMs07nw6Cm7yAZsDodqZdu6XEpBaAriQSH1p6hr 0APWWXVvYgZxUmK6iSUKXk91R8mJWSfmFTmkdbuDySKIXCcNhQOUUmJ2JBM4lHtBF8HU 91CpT2eiDlxQ4ATgdj6YUBg/CsVkIrBT5mWOupJXnWxssH7lPwGjLdF2OORw1DTZajxX YWzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3HRbx+kANi/LpX7QSrBgebnH4xitj7ViR0/Kwe3qcrM=; b=AlePzDn8BpGkCbL7yxh59olkxGlonEIPIniTGjHS+ZtpOTbTCL1DcmdQAgwHBm1WUu 5J1BeRCibZKYDeTkxnVs8iczIVh62wo7wwi9w+HybSdEqwWXVpaVf8dxcjlFUkYqnFiT ej0smGsItZNM3hgQnc4gwnzHUC5K7YhXAUDdtlMxH8yhjZawyUFfIOPT2X57+2Omb8DR 5ptMZiMi3PiY68j+0gsnVc7NHLX+NFLU30TVnBrLtwPUzUAHOODQUXVbmbuvLUG8THsH cVgYni6rOsmje+Lr0mUcjmq3U15Ki/pSfqSVC9tNKkLPmDy2ggdVkDq4HSLTLqDCHOsU /vDg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWahWQSRrIcKPKgpuQ40EbIDkKW02+aJysHf/mr6ojdru4a/wpWw Bmk1ixhV25ovZYvgJ++hIz3L8ZY6Tm/VJZ0cRc9w X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN60S7zQVqgl1jOEk8Ggm5y00BtZG02jMl4fzYrBA041Jcjk5Vgx0Hsvqw1ptVYNjoGExrNv61JynMGEy5jHnCg= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:880a:: with SMTP id x10-v6mr29867987ljh.174.1546546358526; Thu, 03 Jan 2019 12:12:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190103161525.GA6551@roeck-us.net> <20190103173613.jb5kukysslozytwg@madcap2.tricolour.ca> In-Reply-To: <20190103173613.jb5kukysslozytwg@madcap2.tricolour.ca> From: Paul Moore Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 15:12:27 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH ghak90 (was ghak32) V4 00/10] audit: implement container identifier To: Richard Guy Briggs Cc: Guenter Roeck , ebiederm@xmission.com, simo@redhat.com, carlos@redhat.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, LKML , dhowells@redhat.com, Linux-Audit Mailing List , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, luto@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Paris , Serge Hallyn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:36 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > On 2019-01-03 08:15, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 04:07:35PM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > Implement kernel audit container identifier. > > > > I don't see a follow-up submission of this patch series. Has it been abandoned, > > or do I use the wrong search terms ? > > Guenter, thanks for your interest in this patchset. I haven't > abandoned it. I've pushed some updates to my own (ill-publicized) > public git repo. This effort has been going on more than 5 years with 8 > previous revisions trying to document task namespaces and deciding that > was insufficient. > > For this patchset I waited 11.5 weeks (80 days, Jules Verne anyone?) > before the primary intended maintainer did the first review, then I > responded within 2 weeks with further questions and a followup patch > proposal and then waited another 8 weeks for any response before adding > another query for that followup patch proposal review at which point I > got a rude answer saying I had disappointed and exhausted the > maintainer's goodwill with some hints at how to proceed just before new > year's. For what it is worth, I've found your emails to me to be rather "rude" as well (to borrow the term), and I responded with what I felt was appropriate. Perhaps our interactions may have been seen as overly, or quickly, harsh but I would remind those that we have several years of history that extends far beyond the lists which obviously affects how we interact. Our expectations for each other are clearly higher than either of us are delivering, so I'm going to suggest what I've suggested before, albeit privately: let's stick to the code, that's where we can find common ground. There were only a few outstanding threads/questions from your last posting, you should have responses to those sitting in your inbox now. > I'd be delighted with other upstream review to get other angles and to > take some of the load and responsibility off the primary maintainer. > > I expect to submit a v5 within a week without having had those questions > directly answered, but with some ideas of what to check and verify > before I resubmit. Most of the changes have been sitting in that branch > for two months, already rebased one kernel version and will need > updating again. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com