Re: Audit fixes for v4.11 (#1)

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Linus Torvalds >> wrote: >>> The whole reason for that inlined part,

Re: Audit fixes for v4.11 (#1)

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Linus Torvalds >> wrote: >>> The whole reason for that inlined part, and the uninlined >>> __audit_signal_info() helper was that the code *used* to be

Re: Audit fixes for v4.11 (#1)

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> The whole reason for that inlined part, and the uninlined >> __audit_signal_info() helper was that the code *used* to be able to >>

Re: Audit fixes for v4.11 (#1)

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> The whole reason for that inlined part, and the uninlined >> __audit_signal_info() helper was that the code *used* to be able to >> avoid a function call entirely. That reason is now

Re: Audit fixes for v4.11 (#1)

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >> >> This code has passed our testsuite without problem and it has held up >> to my ad-hoc stress tests (arguably better than the

Re: Audit fixes for v4.11 (#1)

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >> >> This code has passed our testsuite without problem and it has held up >> to my ad-hoc stress tests (arguably better than the existing code), >> please consider pulling this as fix

Re: Audit fixes for v4.11 (#1)

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > This code has passed our testsuite without problem and it has held up > to my ad-hoc stress tests (arguably better than the existing code), > please consider pulling this as fix for the next v4.11-rcX tag. Ok, pulled.

Re: Audit fixes for v4.11 (#1)

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > This code has passed our testsuite without problem and it has held up > to my ad-hoc stress tests (arguably better than the existing code), > please consider pulling this as fix for the next v4.11-rcX tag. Ok, pulled. However, looking at the

[GIT PULL] Audit fixes for v4.11 (#1)

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > Hi Linus, > > We've got an audit fix, and unfortunately it is two things I don't > like: big and based on a -rcX tag. The size of the patch is > (hopefully) explained well in the patch description, the -rcX base is > to get

[GIT PULL] Audit fixes for v4.11 (#1)

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > Hi Linus, > > We've got an audit fix, and unfortunately it is two things I don't > like: big and based on a -rcX tag. The size of the patch is > (hopefully) explained well in the patch description, the -rcX base is > to get access to code not

Audit fixes for v4.11 (#1)

Hi Linus, We've got an audit fix, and unfortunately it is two things I don't like: big and based on a -rcX tag. The size of the patch is (hopefully) explained well in the patch description, the -rcX base is to get access to code not present in the v4.11 pull request (audit/next is still based

Audit fixes for v4.11 (#1)

Hi Linus, We've got an audit fix, and unfortunately it is two things I don't like: big and based on a -rcX tag. The size of the patch is (hopefully) explained well in the patch description, the -rcX base is to get access to code not present in the v4.11 pull request (audit/next is still based