On Monday, October 16, 2017 3:15:03 PM EDT Paul Moore wrote:
>> > The audit subsystem allows selecting audit events based
on watches for
>> > a particular behavior like writing to a file. A lot of syscalls have
>> > been added without updating the list. This patch adds 2 syscalls to the
>> > write filters: fallocate and renameat2.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: sgrubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com>
>
> Please add a link to the issue number in the body of the patch
> description:
>
> See:
https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/67
FWIW, I don't really care if the upstream issue is included in the
submitted patch; if you want to include it - great, if you don't -
that's fine too. The commit description needs to stand on its own,
regardless of any external issue trackers, mailing lists, etc.
I honestly don't know what the protocol is here. Should I resend the patch
with that or is that fixed up in the merge process? The reason I ask is on the
user space side I never make anyone resend a patch unless its grossly wrong or
incomplete. I just fix it. But that's what I do and not everyone works that
way.
I'm guessing based on your constant reminders that Steve has
gotten
the message at this point that you would really prefer he added the
issue tracker numbers;
I get it, but in the case of the bind/unbind I didn't even know there was a
tracker.
-Steve