On Thursday, December 18, 2014 02:04:46 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> I'd suggest just sending the GFP type, not the who audit_buffer, but
> that's up to you.
That would be my preference too, especially since we will want to send this to
stable and smaller is generally better there.
--
paul moore
On 14/12/18, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:50:20 -0500, Eric Paris said:
> > On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:45 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks said:
> > > > Spotted these two while booting single-user on 20141216.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:50:20 -0500, Eric Paris said:
> On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:45 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks said:
> >
> > > Spotted these two while booting single-user on 20141216. 20141208
> > > doesn't throw these, so it's
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 13:44 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 14/12/18, Eric Paris wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 12:46 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > On 14/12/18, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:45 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 16 Dec
On 14/12/18, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 12:46 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 14/12/18, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:45 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks said:
> > > > > Spotted these two
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 12:46 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 14/12/18, Eric Paris wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:45 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks said:
> > > > Spotted these two while booting single-user on 20141216.
On 14/12/18, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:45 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks said:
> > > Spotted these two while booting single-user on 20141216. 20141208
> > > doesn't throw these, so it's something in the last week
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:45 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks said:
>
> > Spotted these two while booting single-user on 20141216. 20141208
> > doesn't throw these, so it's something in the last week or so..
>
> Gaah! Turns out that
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks said:
> Spotted these two while booting single-user on 20141216. 20141208
> doesn't throw these, so it's something in the last week or so..
Gaah! Turns out that 20141208 *is* susceptible - it had been booting
just fine for several days, but
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks said:
Spotted these two while booting single-user on 20141216. 20141208
doesn't throw these, so it's something in the last week or so..
Gaah! Turns out that 20141208 *is* susceptible - it had been booting
just fine for several days, but it
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:45 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks said:
Spotted these two while booting single-user on 20141216. 20141208
doesn't throw these, so it's something in the last week or so..
Gaah! Turns out that 20141208
On 14/12/18, Eric Paris wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:45 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks said:
Spotted these two while booting single-user on 20141216. 20141208
doesn't throw these, so it's something in the last week or so..
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 12:46 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/12/18, Eric Paris wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:45 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks said:
Spotted these two while booting single-user on 20141216. 20141208
On 14/12/18, Eric Paris wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 12:46 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/12/18, Eric Paris wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:45 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks said:
Spotted these two while booting
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 13:44 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/12/18, Eric Paris wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 12:46 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/12/18, Eric Paris wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:45 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:50:20 -0500, Eric Paris said:
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:45 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks said:
Spotted these two while booting single-user on 20141216. 20141208
doesn't throw these, so it's something in
On 14/12/18, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:50:20 -0500, Eric Paris said:
On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 11:45 -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:09:54 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks said:
Spotted these two while booting single-user on 20141216. 20141208
On Thursday, December 18, 2014 02:04:46 PM Eric Paris wrote:
I'd suggest just sending the GFP type, not the who audit_buffer, but
that's up to you.
That would be my preference too, especially since we will want to send this to
stable and smaller is generally better there.
--
paul moore
On 14/12/16, Eric Paris wrote:
> I haven't looked into it, but I'd place my first bet on the audit
> multicast code...
Any particular reason for the multicast code (other than the obvious
skb_copy added)? That stuff went upstream 8 months ago rather than this
linux-next window of 20141208 to
On 14/12/16, Eric Paris wrote:
I haven't looked into it, but I'd place my first bet on the audit
multicast code...
Any particular reason for the multicast code (other than the obvious
skb_copy added)? That stuff went upstream 8 months ago rather than this
linux-next window of 20141208 to
I haven't looked into it, but I'd place my first bet on the audit
multicast code...
Richard?
On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 20:09 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> Not sure who's to blame here, but I'm tending towards selinux based on
> who was holding the locks...
>
> Spotted these two while booting
Not sure who's to blame here, but I'm tending towards selinux based on
who was holding the locks...
Spotted these two while booting single-user on 20141216. 20141208
doesn't throw these, so it's something in the last week or so..
Tossed it twice - once for /sbin/sulogin, and then a second time
Not sure who's to blame here, but I'm tending towards selinux based on
who was holding the locks...
Spotted these two while booting single-user on 20141216. 20141208
doesn't throw these, so it's something in the last week or so..
Tossed it twice - once for /sbin/sulogin, and then a second time
I haven't looked into it, but I'd place my first bet on the audit
multicast code...
Richard?
On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 20:09 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
Not sure who's to blame here, but I'm tending towards selinux based on
who was holding the locks...
Spotted these two while booting
24 matches
Mail list logo
