Trent Jaeger wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2005, at 8:42 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
> > Little heavy on KERN_DEBUG printk's. Could you drop them (or perhaps
> > use pr_debug instead)?
>
> You are right. Are there guidelines for when to use KERN_DEBUGs that
> I should be aware of?
Never. Just use pr_deb
From: Trent Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:07:32 -0500
> Removed KERN_DEBUG statements from patch (security/selinux/xfrm.c and
> security/selinux/include/xfrm.h). Not consistent with SELinux and
> not really useful anymore.
I've created a 2.6.16 networking tree at:
Removed KERN_DEBUG statements from patch (security/selinux/xfrm.c and
security/selinux/include/xfrm.h). Not consistent with SELinux and
not really useful anymore.
Regards,
Trent.
This patch series implements per packet access control via the
extensi
Thanks for all your help, Herbert.
Regards,
Trent.
On Nov 17, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:42:29PM -0500, Trent Jaeger wrote:
Patch with sock callback lock made unconditional. Previous send
(earlier today, 11/17) was not the latest patch -- please disregar
On Nov 17, 2005, at 8:42 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
* Trent Jaeger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Patch with sock callback lock made unconditional. Previous send
(earlier today, 11/17) was not the latest patch -- please disregard
that patch.
Little heavy on KERN_DEBUG printk's. Could you drop t
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:28:40 +1100
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:42:29PM -0500, Trent Jaeger wrote:
> > Patch with sock callback lock made unconditional. Previous send
> > (earlier today, 11/17) was not the latest patch -- please disregard
> > that patch.
>
* Trent Jaeger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Patch with sock callback lock made unconditional. Previous send
> (earlier today, 11/17) was not the latest patch -- please disregard
> that patch.
Little heavy on KERN_DEBUG printk's. Could you drop them (or perhaps
use pr_debug instead)?
thanks,
-c
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:42:29PM -0500, Trent Jaeger wrote:
> Patch with sock callback lock made unconditional. Previous send
> (earlier today, 11/17) was not the latest patch -- please disregard
> that patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Trent Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Looks very good. Thank you Tre
Patch with sock callback lock made unconditional. Previous send
(earlier today, 11/17) was not the latest patch -- please disregard
that patch.
Regards,
Trent.
---
This patch series implements per packet access control via the
extension of the Linux Security Modules
Made unconditional the locking of sk_callback_lock when extracting
the security structure. PATCH 1/2 unchanged.
Regards,
Trent.
--
This patch series implements per packet access control via the
extension of the Linux Security Modules (LSM) interface by hooks in
t
Added Signed-off by me and updated to latest kernel.
Regards,
Trent.
--
This patch series implements per packet access control via the
extension of the Linux Security Modules (LSM) interface by hooks in
the XFRM and pfkey subsystems that leverage IPSec security
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:23:56AM -0500, James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > > + if (dir == FLOW_DIR_IN)
> > > + read_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
> >
> > You've probably explained this already, but I wasn't paying attention :)
> > Why is the lock only ne
Hi,
Format modifications for Linux patch style.
Regards,
Trent.
--
This patch series implements per packet access control via the
extension of the Linux Security Modules (LSM) interface by hooks in
the XFRM and pfkey subsystems that leverage IPSec security
associa
13 matches
Mail list logo
