On 14/10/29, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 17:54 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 14/10/29, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 03:48:40 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > On 14/10/21, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > > Can anyone think of anything else that mi
On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 17:54 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 14/10/29, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 03:48:40 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > On 14/10/21, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > Can anyone think of anything else that might be affected by this?
> > > > >
> > >
On 14/10/29, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 03:48:40 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 14/10/21, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > Can anyone think of anything else that might be affected by this?
> > > >
> > > > No one uses this stuff, just change it.
> > >
> > > Yes, but I feel
On 14/10/22, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 06:30:24 PM Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 03:56:10 PM Steve Grubb wrote:
> > Before we go to much farther, I'd really like us to agree that ordering is
> > not important, can we do that?
>
> Its kind of doubtful w
On 14/10/22, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 09:24:05 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 14/10/21, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > Before we go to much farther, I'd really like us to agree that ordering is
> > > not important, can we do that? As a follow up, what do we need to do to
> >
On 14/10/21, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 05:08:22 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 14/10/21, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > > super crazy yuck. audit_log_task_info() ??
> > >
> > > Its a shame we don't have a audit_log_task_info_light function which only
> > > records:
> >
> >
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 03:48:40 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 14/10/21, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > Can anyone think of anything else that might be affected by this?
> > >
> > > No one uses this stuff, just change it.
> >
> > Yes, but I feel like I need to at least ask the question; how
On 14/10/21, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 06:19:52 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 17:56 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > * Change the audit_status.version field comment in
> > > include/uapi/linux/audit.h to "/* audit functionality bitmap */", or
> > > similar. We
On 10/29/2014 07:36 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Toralf Förster
> wrote:
>> Versin 2.2.2 is fine with kernel 3.17, but with c3.18-rc2 I do have an issue.
>>
>> As soon as auditd is started, I do get within the KVM an
>> "INIT: Id "c1! respawning too fast: disabled for
On 14/10/29, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 14/10/29, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 09:35:06AM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > When an AUDIT_GET_FEATURE message is sent from userspace to the kernel, it
> > > should reply with a message tagged as an AUDIT_GET_FEATURE type with a
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Toralf Förster wrote:
> Versin 2.2.2 is fine with kernel 3.17, but with c3.18-rc2 I do have an issue.
>
> As soon as auditd is started, I do get within the KVM an
> "INIT: Id "c1! respawning too fast: disabled for 5 minutes" when I try to
> login into the KVM as r
Versin 2.2.2 is fine with kernel 3.17, but with c3.18-rc2 I do have an issue.
As soon as auditd is started, I do get within the KVM an
"INIT: Id "c1! respawning too fast: disabled for 5 minutes" when I try to login
into the KVM as root.
Furthermore as an previously logged in user I can run any c
On 14/10/29, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 09:35:06AM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > When an AUDIT_GET_FEATURE message is sent from userspace to the kernel, it
> > should reply with a message tagged as an AUDIT_GET_FEATURE type with a
> > struct
> > audit_feature. The current rep
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 09:35:06AM -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> When an AUDIT_GET_FEATURE message is sent from userspace to the kernel, it
> should reply with a message tagged as an AUDIT_GET_FEATURE type with a struct
> audit_feature. The current reply is a message tagged as an AUDIT_GET
>
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 09:35:06 AM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> When an AUDIT_GET_FEATURE message is sent from userspace to the kernel, it
> should reply with a message tagged as an AUDIT_GET_FEATURE type with a
> struct audit_feature. The current reply is a message tagged as an
> AUDIT_GET
When an AUDIT_GET_FEATURE message is sent from userspace to the kernel, it
should reply with a message tagged as an AUDIT_GET_FEATURE type with a struct
audit_feature. The current reply is a message tagged as an AUDIT_GET
type with a struct audit_feature.
This appears to have been a cut-and-paste
16 matches
Mail list logo
