On Thursday 07 May 2009 07:05:00 pm Tony Jones wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 03:50:01PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > No problem. As far as I'm aware the discussion never went beyond this
> > thread as I was unable to recreate the problem with the (then) current
> > kernels but it may not be a b
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 03:50:01PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> No problem. As far as I'm aware the discussion never went beyond this thread
> as I was unable to recreate the problem with the (then) current kernels but
> it
> may not be a bad idea to get the arch folks and perhaps lkml involved
On Tuesday 05 May 2009 03:34:43 pm Tony Jones wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 03:20:52PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 May 2009 03:07:36 pm Tony Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 02:22:04PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > I believe Matt Anderson (CC'd) reported the bug you a
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 03:20:52PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 May 2009 03:07:36 pm Tony Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 02:22:04PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > I believe Matt Anderson (CC'd) reported the bug you are referring to and
> > > the workaround I posted seemed to f
On Tuesday 05 May 2009 03:07:36 pm Tony Jones wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 02:22:04PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > I believe Matt Anderson (CC'd) reported the bug you are referring to and
> > the workaround I posted seemed to fix the issue for him. I've stopped
> > looking
>
> I'll check it ou
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 02:22:04PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> I believe Matt Anderson (CC'd) reported the bug you are referring to and the
> workaround I posted seemed to fix the issue for him. I've stopped looking
I'll check it out, I see the commit: 6d208da89aabee8502debe842832ca0ab298d16d
T
On Tuesday 05 May 2009 02:08:45 pm Tony Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 11:34:35AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > While doing some testing on Fedora 10 using the 2.6.27.5-117.fc10.x86_64
> > kernel I stumbled across a rather odd problem: somewhere between the end
> > of sys_sendto() and audit_
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 11:44:09PM -0300, Klaus Heinrich Kiwi wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 11:34 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > Does anyone have any thoughts?
>
> I remember debugging an issue with the incorrect return value being
> audited for a syscall. It was s390[x] specific and only occurred
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 11:34:35AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> While doing some testing on Fedora 10 using the 2.6.27.5-117.fc10.x86_64
> kernel I stumbled across a rather odd problem: somewhere between the end of
> sys_sendto() and audit_syscall_exit() the syscall's return value was changing
> r
On Tuesday 07 April 2009 10:44:09 pm Klaus Heinrich Kiwi wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 11:34 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > Does anyone have any thoughts?
>
> I remember debugging an issue with the incorrect return value being
> audited for a syscall. It was s390[x] specific and only occurred with
>
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 11:34 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> Does anyone have any thoughts?
I remember debugging an issue with the incorrect return value being
audited for a syscall. It was s390[x] specific and only occurred with
successful execve() syscalls. This behavior was pointed out with the
open-
While doing some testing on Fedora 10 using the 2.6.27.5-117.fc10.x86_64
kernel I stumbled across a rather odd problem: somewhere between the end of
sys_sendto() and audit_syscall_exit() the syscall's return value was changing
resulting in incorrect audit records (similar problems with sys_sendm
12 matches
Mail list logo
