diff for duplicates of <1512657359.3527.49.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index d087baa..f1e1c79 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 07:26 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: A cleaned up version of this patch set was meant to follow the introduction of a new integrity_read method, but that patch set was -rejected. At this point, I have no intentions of upstreaming a +rejected. ?At this point, I have no intentions of upstreaming a cleaned up version this patch set either. > The warning itself seems ok, but I don't really see what's wrong with @@ -27,6 +27,11 @@ cleaned up version this patch set either. Based on discussions with Sascha Hauer, he convinced me the i_version test is basically just a performance improvement and posted a patch that checks the filesystem for i_version support, before relying on it -- https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-integrity/msg00033.html. +- ?https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-integrity/msg00033.html. Mimi + +-- +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 52eb30c..7c8b72c 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -1,16 +1,10 @@ "ref\01502904620-20075-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0" "ref\01502904620-20075-3-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0" "ref\01512649584.1350.14.camel@redhat.com\0" - "From\0Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>\0" - "Subject\0Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] ima: define new ima_sb_post_new_mount hook\0" + "From\0zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Mimi Zohar)\0" + "Subject\0[RFC PATCH 2/4] ima: define new ima_sb_post_new_mount hook\0" "Date\0Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:35:59 -0500\0" - "To\0Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>" - Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - " Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>\0" - "Cc\0Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>" - linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org - linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org - " linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>\0" + "To\0linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "Hi Jeff,\n" @@ -29,7 +23,7 @@ "\n" "A cleaned up version of this patch set was meant to follow the\n" "introduction of a new integrity_read method, but that patch set was\n" - "rejected. At this point, I have no intentions of upstreaming a\n" + "rejected. ?At this point, I have no intentions of upstreaming a\n" "cleaned up version this patch set either.\n" "\n" "> The warning itself seems ok, but I don't really see what's wrong with\n" @@ -42,8 +36,13 @@ "Based on discussions with Sascha Hauer, he convinced me the i_version\n" "test is basically just a performance improvement and posted a patch\n" "that checks the filesystem for i_version support, before relying on it\n" - "- https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-integrity/msg00033.html.\n" + "- ?https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-integrity/msg00033.html.\n" "\n" - Mimi + "Mimi\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 -e9bcb8a82a587fc78c20943ebc034820226b255a2cc51ab6b370d72d771b1175 +a23717fda4de3c08bab91d84114930e5789611f82aee0a2b67e10ed66367a453
diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N2/1.txt index d087baa..b3d85cd 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N2/1.txt @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 07:26 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: A cleaned up version of this patch set was meant to follow the introduction of a new integrity_read method, but that patch set was -rejected. At this point, I have no intentions of upstreaming a +rejected. At this point, I have no intentions of upstreaming a cleaned up version this patch set either. > The warning itself seems ok, but I don't really see what's wrong with @@ -27,6 +27,6 @@ cleaned up version this patch set either. Based on discussions with Sascha Hauer, he convinced me the i_version test is basically just a performance improvement and posted a patch that checks the filesystem for i_version support, before relying on it -- https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-integrity/msg00033.html. +- https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-integrity/msg00033.html. Mimi diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N2/content_digest index 52eb30c..4d3c34d 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N2/content_digest @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ "\n" "A cleaned up version of this patch set was meant to follow the\n" "introduction of a new integrity_read method, but that patch set was\n" - "rejected. At this point, I have no intentions of upstreaming a\n" + "rejected. \302\240At this point, I have no intentions of upstreaming a\n" "cleaned up version this patch set either.\n" "\n" "> The warning itself seems ok, but I don't really see what's wrong with\n" @@ -42,8 +42,8 @@ "Based on discussions with Sascha Hauer, he convinced me the i_version\n" "test is basically just a performance improvement and posted a patch\n" "that checks the filesystem for i_version support, before relying on it\n" - "- https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-integrity/msg00033.html.\n" + "- \302\240https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-integrity/msg00033.html.\n" "\n" Mimi -e9bcb8a82a587fc78c20943ebc034820226b255a2cc51ab6b370d72d771b1175 +069c54baaf868b00fa329713cb8589f9cb289ef640cf547fa54faac0d80f10bc
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.