On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Eric Paris wrote:
> which didn't have my fix up because i didn't commit it to my local
> branch. Is there a better way to get a diff between my miller tree and
> 'everything in the branch I have checked out even if it is not
> committed'?
I'd suggest you commit all your
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 16:07 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:43:16 -0800 (PST)
>
> > From: Eric Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:51:24 -0500
> >
> > > pfkey_spdget neither had an LSM security hook nor auditing
On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 16:07 -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:43:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:51:24 -0500
pfkey_spdget neither had an LSM security hook nor auditing for the
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Eric Paris wrote:
which didn't have my fix up because i didn't commit it to my local
branch. Is there a better way to get a diff between my miller tree and
'everything in the branch I have checked out even if it is not
committed'?
I'd suggest you commit all your changes
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:43:16 -0800 (PST)
> From: Eric Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:51:24 -0500
>
> > pfkey_spdget neither had an LSM security hook nor auditing for the
> > removal of xfrm_policy structs. The security hook was
From: Eric Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:51:24 -0500
> pfkey_spdget neither had an LSM security hook nor auditing for the
> removal of xfrm_policy structs. The security hook was added when it was
> moved into xfrm_policy_byid instead of the callers to that function by
> my
From: Eric Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:51:24 -0500
pfkey_spdget neither had an LSM security hook nor auditing for the
removal of xfrm_policy structs. The security hook was added when it was
moved into xfrm_policy_byid instead of the callers to that function by
my
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:43:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:51:24 -0500
pfkey_spdget neither had an LSM security hook nor auditing for the
removal of xfrm_policy structs. The security hook was added when it
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Eric Paris wrote:
> pfkey_spdget neither had an LSM security hook nor auditing for the
> removal of xfrm_policy structs. The security hook was added when it was
> moved into xfrm_policy_byid instead of the callers to that function by
> my earlier patch and this patch adds the
> pfkey_spdget neither had an LSM security hook nor auditing for the
> removal of xfrm_policy structs. The security hook was added
> when it was
> moved into xfrm_policy_byid instead of the callers to that function by
> my earlier patch and this patch adds the auditing hooks as well.
>
>
pfkey_spdget neither had an LSM security hook nor auditing for the
removal of xfrm_policy structs. The security hook was added
when it was
moved into xfrm_policy_byid instead of the callers to that function by
my earlier patch and this patch adds the auditing hooks as well.
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Eric Paris wrote:
pfkey_spdget neither had an LSM security hook nor auditing for the
removal of xfrm_policy structs. The security hook was added when it was
moved into xfrm_policy_byid instead of the callers to that function by
my earlier patch and this patch adds the
pfkey_spdget neither had an LSM security hook nor auditing for the
removal of xfrm_policy structs. The security hook was added when it was
moved into xfrm_policy_byid instead of the callers to that function by
my earlier patch and this patch adds the auditing hooks as well.
Signed-off-by: Eric
pfkey_spdget neither had an LSM security hook nor auditing for the
removal of xfrm_policy structs. The security hook was added when it was
moved into xfrm_policy_byid instead of the callers to that function by
my earlier patch and this patch adds the auditing hooks as well.
Signed-off-by: Eric
14 matches
Mail list logo
