Re: [PATCH 1/2] auditsc: audit_krule mask accesses need bounds checking

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> In this particular case, it's my patch, and I've never sent you a pull
> request.  I sort of assumed that security@xxxxxxxxxx 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. 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/