On 28 September 2017 at 17:48, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, David Howells wrote:
>
>> James Morris wrote:
>>
>> > David, have you taken these into your tree? I can apply them to mine if
>> > needed.
>>
>> I was intending to add them to my next tree for security/next.
>
> Ok, please
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, David Howells wrote:
> James Morris wrote:
>
> > David, have you taken these into your tree? I can apply them to mine if
> > needed.
>
> I was intending to add them to my next tree for security/next.
Ok, please add
Reviewed-by: James Morris
to these.
Also, please use
James Morris wrote:
> David, have you taken these into your tree? I can apply them to mine if
> needed.
I was intending to add them to my next tree for security/next.
David
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Baolin Wang wrote:
> Since 'time_t', 'timeval' and 'timespec' types are not year 2038 safe on
> 32 bits system, this patchset tries to fix this issues for security/keys
> subsystem.
>
> Changes since v1:
> - Add reviewed tag from Arnd.
> - Drop Patch 3 which had been merged
Since 'time_t', 'timeval' and 'timespec' types are not year 2038 safe on
32 bits system, this patchset tries to fix this issues for security/keys
subsystem.
Changes since v1:
- Add reviewed tag from Arnd.
- Drop Patch 3 which had been merged into kernel 4.14 by David.
Baolin Wang (2):
securit
5 matches
Mail list logo