On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>> I have no problem merging this patch into audit/next for v4.12, would
>> you prefer me to do that so at least this patch is merged?
>
> This would be fine.
> But, I think whoever takes the last 2 deletion patches should also take them.
> I'm
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>> I have no problem merging this patch into audit/next for v4.12, would
>> you prefer me to do that so at least this patch is merged?
>
> This would be fine.
> But, I think whoever takes the last 2 deletion patches should also take them.
> I'm
> I have no problem merging this patch into audit/next for v4.12, would
> you prefer me to do that so at least this patch is merged?
This would be fine.
But, I think whoever takes the last 2 deletion patches should also take them.
I'm not sure how that part works out.
> It would probably make lif
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> struct timespec is not y2038 safe.
> Audit timestamps are recorded in string format into
> an audit buffer for a given context.
> These mark the entry timestamps for the syscalls.
> Use y2038 safe struct timespec64 to represent the times.
> T
4 matches
Mail list logo
