On 14/02/19, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 14/02/18, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 14/02/18, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 03:50:44 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > > missing '=' but this isn't what audit_get_context() does... it's
> > > > > crappy naming...
On 14/02/19, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/02/18, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/02/18, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 03:50:44 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
missing '=' but this isn't what audit_get_context() does... it's
crappy naming...I'd think a
On 14/02/18, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 14/02/18, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 03:50:44 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > missing '=' but this isn't what audit_get_context() does... it's
> > > > crappy naming...I'd think a combo of audit_dummy_context() and
>
On 14/02/18, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/02/18, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 03:50:44 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
missing '=' but this isn't what audit_get_context() does... it's
crappy naming...I'd think a combo of audit_dummy_context() and
On 14/02/18, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 03:50:44 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > missing '=' but this isn't what audit_get_context() does... it's
> > > crappy naming...I'd think a combo of audit_dummy_context() and
> > > current->audit_context would be most
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 03:50:44 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > missing '=' but this isn't what audit_get_context() does... it's
> > crappy naming...I'd think a combo of audit_dummy_context() and
> > current->audit_context would be most appropriate.
>
> Ok. I think I finally
On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 15:50 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 14/02/14, Eric Paris wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:52 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > On 14/02/14, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > On 14/02/14, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:23 -0500, Richard
On 14/02/14, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:52 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 14/02/14, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > On 14/02/14, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:23 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > > The AUDIT_SECCOMP record looks something like
On 14/02/14, Eric Paris wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:52 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/02/14, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/02/14, Eric Paris wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:23 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
The AUDIT_SECCOMP record looks something like this:
On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 15:50 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/02/14, Eric Paris wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:52 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/02/14, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/02/14, Eric Paris wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:23 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 03:50:44 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
missing '=' but this isn't what audit_get_context() does... it's
crappy naming...I'd think a combo of audit_dummy_context() and
current-audit_context would be most appropriate.
Ok. I think I finally understand
On 14/02/18, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 03:50:44 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
missing '=' but this isn't what audit_get_context() does... it's
crappy naming...I'd think a combo of audit_dummy_context() and
current-audit_context would be most appropriate.
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:52 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 14/02/14, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 14/02/14, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:23 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > The AUDIT_SECCOMP record looks something like this:
> > > >
> > > > type=SECCOMP
On 14/02/14, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 14/02/14, Eric Paris wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:23 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > The AUDIT_SECCOMP record looks something like this:
> > >
> > > type=SECCOMP msg=audit(1373478171.953:32775): auid=4325 uid=4325 gid=4325
> > > ses=1
On 14/02/14, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:23 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > The AUDIT_SECCOMP record looks something like this:
> >
> > type=SECCOMP msg=audit(1373478171.953:32775): auid=4325 uid=4325 gid=4325
> > ses=1 subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:23 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> The AUDIT_SECCOMP record looks something like this:
>
> type=SECCOMP msg=audit(1373478171.953:32775): auid=4325 uid=4325 gid=4325
> ses=1 subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0 pid=12381 comm="test"
> sig=31 syscall=231
The AUDIT_SECCOMP record looks something like this:
type=SECCOMP msg=audit(1373478171.953:32775): auid=4325 uid=4325 gid=4325 ses=1
subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0 pid=12381 comm="test" sig=31
syscall=231 compat=0 ip=0x39ea8bca89 code=0x0
In order to determine what syscall 231
The AUDIT_SECCOMP record looks something like this:
type=SECCOMP msg=audit(1373478171.953:32775): auid=4325 uid=4325 gid=4325 ses=1
subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0 pid=12381 comm=test sig=31
syscall=231 compat=0 ip=0x39ea8bca89 code=0x0
In order to determine what syscall 231
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:23 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
The AUDIT_SECCOMP record looks something like this:
type=SECCOMP msg=audit(1373478171.953:32775): auid=4325 uid=4325 gid=4325
ses=1 subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0 pid=12381 comm=test
sig=31 syscall=231 compat=0
On 14/02/14, Eric Paris wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:23 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
The AUDIT_SECCOMP record looks something like this:
type=SECCOMP msg=audit(1373478171.953:32775): auid=4325 uid=4325 gid=4325
ses=1 subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0 pid=12381
On 14/02/14, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/02/14, Eric Paris wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:23 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
The AUDIT_SECCOMP record looks something like this:
type=SECCOMP msg=audit(1373478171.953:32775): auid=4325 uid=4325 gid=4325
ses=1
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:52 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/02/14, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/02/14, Eric Paris wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:23 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
The AUDIT_SECCOMP record looks something like this:
type=SECCOMP
22 matches
Mail list logo