diff for duplicates of <1509382827.3583.143.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index e67800a..7af44e4 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -7,8 +7,8 @@ On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 15:55 +0000, David Howells wrote: > > Did you mean "true" rather than "TRUE"? -Yes, of course. Commit 9f4b6a254d7a "ima: Fix bool -initialization/comparison" already addresses it. Please remove it +Yes, of course. ?Commit 9f4b6a254d7a "ima: Fix bool +initialization/comparison" already addresses it. ?Please remove it from this patch. > @@ -26,9 +26,9 @@ Probably > memory during early boot, after all. If the memory allocation fails, the "secure_boot" policy will not be -enabled for custom policies, but how is that "oopsing". If it fails, +enabled for custom policies, but how is that "oopsing". ?If it fails, there needs to be some indication of the failure, which there -currently isn't. Perhaps also prevent loading a custom policy. +currently isn't. ?Perhaps also prevent loading a custom policy. > > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&entry->list); @@ -37,3 +37,8 @@ currently isn't. Perhaps also prevent loading a custom policy. > Isn't the init redundant, given the following line? ok + +-- +To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in +the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org +More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 367d6c7..3601bde 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -1,12 +1,9 @@ "ref\01508774387.3639.128.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0" "ref\0750.1509378910@warthog.procyon.org.uk\0" - "From\0Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>\0" - "Subject\0Re: [RFC PATCH] ima: require secure_boot rules in lockdown mode\0" + "From\0zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Mimi Zohar)\0" + "Subject\0[RFC PATCH] ima: require secure_boot rules in lockdown mode\0" "Date\0Mon, 30 Oct 2017 13:00:27 -0400\0" - "To\0David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>\0" - "Cc\0linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>" - Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com> - " linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>\0" + "To\0linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 15:55 +0000, David Howells wrote:\n" @@ -18,8 +15,8 @@ "> \n" "> Did you mean \"true\" rather than \"TRUE\"?\n" "\n" - "Yes, of course. Commit 9f4b6a254d7a \"ima: Fix bool\n" - "initialization/comparison\" already addresses it. Please remove it\n" + "Yes, of course. ?Commit 9f4b6a254d7a \"ima: Fix bool\n" + "initialization/comparison\" already addresses it. ?Please remove it\n" "from this patch.\n" "\n" "> \n" @@ -37,9 +34,9 @@ "> memory during early boot, after all.\n" "\n" "If the memory allocation fails, the \"secure_boot\" policy will not be\n" - "enabled for custom policies, but how is that \"oopsing\". If it fails,\n" + "enabled for custom policies, but how is that \"oopsing\". ?If it fails,\n" "there needs to be some indication of the failure, which there\n" - "currently isn't. Perhaps also prevent loading a custom policy.\n" + "currently isn't. ?Perhaps also prevent loading a custom policy.\n" "\n" "> \n" "> > +\t\t\t\tINIT_LIST_HEAD(&entry->list);\n" @@ -47,6 +44,11 @@ "> \n" "> Isn't the init redundant, given the following line?\n" "\n" - ok + "ok\n" + "\n" + "--\n" + "To unsubscribe from this list: send the line \"unsubscribe linux-security-module\" in\n" + "the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org\n" + More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -254a1361a49f0ef1f701d98fbf4e178f72753487d17aa3212c6bd1af54a18089 +24baa35b8a370644e8533049f23b8c37742401a85197c32dbadb03b16171ab34
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.