On Monday, November 17, 2014 03:51:01 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
> limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
> distict from the get/set features call to be able to command those features
The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
distict from the get/set features call to be able to command those features
that are present.
Converting this field from a version number to a
On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:32:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 14/11/13, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 13, 2014 08:08:52 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > So what terrible things happen to userspace if
> > > > AUDIT_VERSION_BACKLOG_WAIT_TIME becomes 0x03 instead of
On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:32:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/11/13, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 08:08:52 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
So what terrible things happen to userspace if
AUDIT_VERSION_BACKLOG_WAIT_TIME becomes 0x03 instead of 0x02?
The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
distict from the get/set features call to be able to command those features
that are present.
Converting this field from a version number to a
On Monday, November 17, 2014 03:51:01 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
distict from the get/set features call to be able to command those features
On 14/11/13, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Thursday, November 13, 2014 08:08:52 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > So what terrible things happen to userspace if
> > > AUDIT_VERSION_BACKLOG_WAIT_TIME becomes 0x03 instead of 0x02?
> >
> > But it won't. It gets the value of
> >
My apologies, yes I was concerned about LATEST. Try the test that Steve
described and if that works I'm happy.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
On November 13, 2014 8:09:11 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/11/13, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thursday, November 13, 2014 03:29:10 PM Richard Guy
My apologies, yes I was concerned about LATEST. Try the test that Steve
described and if that works I'm happy.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
On November 13, 2014 8:09:11 PM Richard Guy Briggs r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 14/11/13, Paul Moore wrote:
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 03:29:10
On 14/11/13, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 08:08:52 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
So what terrible things happen to userspace if
AUDIT_VERSION_BACKLOG_WAIT_TIME becomes 0x03 instead of 0x02?
But it won't. It gets the value of
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 08:08:52 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > So what terrible things happen to userspace if
> > AUDIT_VERSION_BACKLOG_WAIT_TIME becomes 0x03 instead of 0x02?
>
> But it won't. It gets the value of
> AUDIT_FEATURE_BITMAP_BACKLOG_WAIT_TIME, which is 0x0002.
>
> I
On 14/11/13, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thursday, November 13, 2014 03:29:10 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
> > limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
> > distict from the get/set features
On 14/11/13, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 15:29 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
> > limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
> > distict from the get/set features call to
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 03:29:10 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
> limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
> distict from the get/set features call to be able to command those
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 12:38:17 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 15:29 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
> > limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
> > distict from
On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 15:29 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
> limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
> distict from the get/set features call to be able to command those features
> that
The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
distict from the get/set features call to be able to command those features
that are present.
Converting this field from a version number to a
The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
distict from the get/set features call to be able to command those features
that are present.
Converting this field from a version number to a
On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 15:29 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
distict from the get/set features call to be able to command those features
that are
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 12:38:17 PM Joe Perches wrote:
On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 15:29 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
distict from the
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 03:29:10 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
distict from the get/set features call to be able to command those features
On 14/11/13, Joe Perches wrote:
On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 15:29 -0500, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
distict from the get/set features call to be able
On 14/11/13, Paul Moore wrote:
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 03:29:10 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
The version field defined in the audit status structure was found to have
limitations in terms of its expressibility of features supported. This is
distict from the get/set features call to
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 08:08:52 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
So what terrible things happen to userspace if
AUDIT_VERSION_BACKLOG_WAIT_TIME becomes 0x03 instead of 0x02?
But it won't. It gets the value of
AUDIT_FEATURE_BITMAP_BACKLOG_WAIT_TIME, which is 0x0002.
I think you
24 matches
Mail list logo
