All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
diff for duplicates of <1516380970.3772.112.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index ec73406..63ff25b 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -51,9 +51,9 @@ performance.
 
 Some filesystems should not be evaluated, such as pseudo filesystems
 (eg. cgroups, sysfs, devpts, pstorefs, efivarfs, debugfs, selinux,
-smack).  Instead of defining a flag indicating whether or not IMA is
+smack). ?Instead of defining a flag indicating whether or not IMA is
 applicable/supported, we should define a new flag, indicating whether
-it is a pseudo filesystem.  This would eliminate a large portion of at
+it is a pseudo filesystem. ?This would eliminate a large portion of at
 least the builtin IMA policy rules.
 
 > > I'm also wondering if this change should be
@@ -65,3 +65,8 @@ least the builtin IMA policy rules.
 The flag and FUSE usage of the flag, separately from IMA.
 
 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 8697c82..6869bd8 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -1,24 +1,10 @@
  "ref\020180116151000.443-1-alban@kinvolk.io\0"
  "ref\01516310702.3772.11.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0"
  "ref\0CADZs7q4StoPLD4-CSXp5DkgPh29vrZWjayTAYkMAsrDychLOoQ@mail.gmail.com\0"
- "From\0Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>\0"
- "Subject\0Re: [RFC PATCH v2] ima,fuse: introduce new fs flag FS_NO_IMA_CACHE\0"
+ "From\0zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Mimi Zohar)\0"
+ "Subject\0[RFC PATCH v2] ima,fuse: introduce new fs flag FS_NO_IMA_CACHE\0"
  "Date\0Fri, 19 Jan 2018 11:56:10 -0500\0"
- "To\0Alban Crequy <alban@kinvolk.io>\0"
- "Cc\0Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@gmail.com>"
- " Iago L\303\263pez Galeiras <iago@kinvolk.io>"
-  Dongsu Park <dongsu@kinvolk.io>
-  LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
-  linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
-  linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
-  linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
-  Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
-  Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-  Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>
-  James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>
-  Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
-  Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
- " Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>\0"
+ "To\0linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org\0"
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
  "On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 11:35 +0100, Alban Crequy wrote:\n"
@@ -74,9 +60,9 @@
  "\n"
  "Some filesystems should not be evaluated, such as pseudo filesystems\n"
  "(eg. cgroups, sysfs, devpts, pstorefs, efivarfs, debugfs, selinux,\n"
- "smack).  Instead of defining a flag indicating whether or not IMA is\n"
+ "smack). ?Instead of defining a flag indicating whether or not IMA is\n"
  "applicable/supported, we should define a new flag, indicating whether\n"
- "it is a pseudo filesystem.  This would eliminate a large portion of at\n"
+ "it is a pseudo filesystem. ?This would eliminate a large portion of at\n"
  "least the builtin IMA policy rules.\n"
  "\n"
  "> > I'm also wondering if this change should be\n"
@@ -87,6 +73,11 @@
  "\n"
  "The flag and FUSE usage of the flag, separately from IMA.\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
 
-d6350120d4ccb47be271b42fbf9d5263d04c059e2768ac4f373c00370c126b83
+354832c6e61e4549fad7fe139da48756d5a1317a862cb94e8ec9bb26f5bc2d3c

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N2/1.txt
index ec73406..8af9bdc 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N2/1.txt
@@ -51,9 +51,9 @@ performance.
 
 Some filesystems should not be evaluated, such as pseudo filesystems
 (eg. cgroups, sysfs, devpts, pstorefs, efivarfs, debugfs, selinux,
-smack).  Instead of defining a flag indicating whether or not IMA is
+smack).  Instead of defining a flag indicating whether or not IMA is
 applicable/supported, we should define a new flag, indicating whether
-it is a pseudo filesystem.  This would eliminate a large portion of at
+it is a pseudo filesystem.  This would eliminate a large portion of at
 least the builtin IMA policy rules.
 
 > > I'm also wondering if this change should be
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N2/content_digest
index 8697c82..0baddec 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N2/content_digest
@@ -74,9 +74,9 @@
  "\n"
  "Some filesystems should not be evaluated, such as pseudo filesystems\n"
  "(eg. cgroups, sysfs, devpts, pstorefs, efivarfs, debugfs, selinux,\n"
- "smack).  Instead of defining a flag indicating whether or not IMA is\n"
+ "smack). \302\240Instead of defining a flag indicating whether or not IMA is\n"
  "applicable/supported, we should define a new flag, indicating whether\n"
- "it is a pseudo filesystem.  This would eliminate a large portion of at\n"
+ "it is a pseudo filesystem. \302\240This would eliminate a large portion of at\n"
  "least the builtin IMA policy rules.\n"
  "\n"
  "> > I'm also wondering if this change should be\n"
@@ -89,4 +89,4 @@
  "\n"
  Mimi
 
-d6350120d4ccb47be271b42fbf9d5263d04c059e2768ac4f373c00370c126b83
+6519dcccba13b49abf8c59750652df1c5d68c61ec29e36ca9b0378436dd0450b

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.