On Friday, July 17, 2015 12:48:53 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 15/07/16, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:01:30 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> > > I have to admit, I'm partial to not merging this (with the other
> > > patches). Changing object lifetimes in what i seem to remember
On Friday, July 17, 2015 12:18:27 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 15/07/16, Eric Paris wrote:
> > I have to admit, I'm partial to not merging this (with the other
> > patches). Changing object lifetimes in what i seem to remember is long
> > standing code (auditfilter, not auditexe) seems to me
On 15/07/16, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:01:30 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> > I have to admit, I'm partial to not merging this (with the other
> > patches). Changing object lifetimes in what i seem to remember is long
> > standing code (auditfilter, not auditexe) seems to me like
On 15/07/16, Eric Paris wrote:
> I have to admit, I'm partial to not merging this (with the other
> patches). Changing object lifetimes in what i seem to remember is long
> standing code (auditfilter, not auditexe) seems to me like something we
> really would want to be git bisectable, not mushed
On 15/07/16, Eric Paris wrote:
I have to admit, I'm partial to not merging this (with the other
patches). Changing object lifetimes in what i seem to remember is long
standing code (auditfilter, not auditexe) seems to me like something we
really would want to be git bisectable, not mushed
On 15/07/16, Paul Moore wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:01:30 PM Eric Paris wrote:
I have to admit, I'm partial to not merging this (with the other
patches). Changing object lifetimes in what i seem to remember is long
standing code (auditfilter, not auditexe) seems to me like
On Friday, July 17, 2015 12:48:53 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 15/07/16, Paul Moore wrote:
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:01:30 PM Eric Paris wrote:
I have to admit, I'm partial to not merging this (with the other
patches). Changing object lifetimes in what i seem to remember is long
On Friday, July 17, 2015 12:18:27 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 15/07/16, Eric Paris wrote:
I have to admit, I'm partial to not merging this (with the other
patches). Changing object lifetimes in what i seem to remember is long
standing code (auditfilter, not auditexe) seems to me like
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:01:30 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> I have to admit, I'm partial to not merging this (with the other
> patches). Changing object lifetimes in what i seem to remember is long
> standing code (auditfilter, not auditexe) seems to me like something we
> really would want to be
I have to admit, I'm partial to not merging this (with the other
patches). Changing object lifetimes in what i seem to remember is long
standing code (auditfilter, not auditexe) seems to me like something we
really would want to be git bisectable, not mushed with an unrelated
feature addition.
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:01:28 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 15/07/16, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:50:26 AM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > Make this interface consistent with watch and filter key, avoiding the
> > > extra string copy and simply consume the new
On 15/07/16, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:50:26 AM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > Make this interface consistent with watch and filter key, avoiding the extra
> > string copy and simply consume the new string pointer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs
> > ---
> >
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:50:26 AM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> Make this interface consistent with watch and filter key, avoiding the extra
> string copy and simply consume the new string pointer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs
> ---
> kernel/audit_exe.c |8 ++--
>
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:01:30 PM Eric Paris wrote:
I have to admit, I'm partial to not merging this (with the other
patches). Changing object lifetimes in what i seem to remember is long
standing code (auditfilter, not auditexe) seems to me like something we
really would want to be git
I have to admit, I'm partial to not merging this (with the other
patches). Changing object lifetimes in what i seem to remember is long
standing code (auditfilter, not auditexe) seems to me like something we
really would want to be git bisectable, not mushed with an unrelated
feature addition.
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:50:26 AM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
Make this interface consistent with watch and filter key, avoiding the extra
string copy and simply consume the new string pointer.
Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs r...@redhat.com
---
kernel/audit_exe.c |8 ++--
On Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:01:28 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 15/07/16, Paul Moore wrote:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:50:26 AM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
Make this interface consistent with watch and filter key, avoiding the
extra string copy and simply consume the new string
On 15/07/16, Paul Moore wrote:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:50:26 AM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
Make this interface consistent with watch and filter key, avoiding the extra
string copy and simply consume the new string pointer.
Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs r...@redhat.com
---
Make this interface consistent with watch and filter key, avoiding the extra
string copy and simply consume the new string pointer.
Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs
---
kernel/audit_exe.c |8 ++--
kernel/audit_fsnotify.c |9 +
kernel/auditfilter.c|2 +-
3 files
Make this interface consistent with watch and filter key, avoiding the extra
string copy and simply consume the new string pointer.
Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs r...@redhat.com
---
kernel/audit_exe.c |8 ++--
kernel/audit_fsnotify.c |9 +
kernel/auditfilter.c|
20 matches
Mail list logo
