On 2020-07-13 20:11, Paul Moore wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 7:09 PM Casey Schaufler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ... but it does appear that I could switch to using your > > audit_alloc_local(). > > In my opinion, linking the audit container ID and LSM stacking > patchsets would seem like a very big mistake, especially since the > consolidation you are describing could be done after the fact without > any disruption to the kernel/userspace interface. I would strongly > encourage both patchsets to remain self-contained if at all possible > so as to not jeopardize each other.
I see no need to link them. The audit_alloc_local() patch could stand on its own to be used by either patchset and doesn't need to be included in the contid patchset. There is no mention of contid in it. Patches 8 and 11 depend on it so as long as it is already upstream that's fine. Of course, we could send a fixup patch after both patchsets are accepted upstream to merge the functionality of the two. > paul moore - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs <[email protected]> Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada IRC: rgb, SunRaycer Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635 -- Linux-audit mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
