On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:03 AM, David Howells wrote:
>
> I've been asked by Kerberos developers to slightly change the behaviour of the
> add_key() and request_key() system calls and a couple of the keyctl()
> functions
> - and I'm wondering if you'd be okay with it.
So the rule about ABI chang
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, David Howells wrote:
> (5) Don't implicitly create a new anonymous keyring and don't implicitly set
> the session keyring to the user-session keyring, but rather just fall
> back
> to using the user-session keyring if there isn't a session keyring.
>
>
> That sa
[Sent again, this time with Linus's address correct]
Hi Linus,
I've been asked by Kerberos developers to slightly change the behaviour of the
add_key() and request_key() system calls and a couple of the keyctl() functions
- and I'm wondering if you'd be okay with it.
The current behaviour can b
Hi Linus,
I've been asked by Kerberos developers to slightly change the behaviour of the
add_key() and request_key() system calls and a couple of the keyctl() functions
- and I'm wondering if you'd be okay with it.
The current behaviour can be illustrated thusly:
(*) The add_key() syscall, for
4 matches
Mail list logo