diff for duplicates of <1521140467.5348.94.camel@HansenPartnership.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 7028e1c..10c0511 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -7,9 +7,9 @@ On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 14:51 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
 > > > > 
 > > > > commit f36f8c75ae2e7d4da34f4c908cebdb4aa42c977e
 > > > > Author: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
-> > > > Date:   Tue Sep 24 10:35:19 2013 +0100
+> > > > Date:   Tue Sep 24 10:35:19 2013 +0100
 > > > > 
-> > > >       KEYS: Add per-user_namespace registers for persistent
+> > > >       KEYS: Add per-user_namespace registers for persistent
 > > > > per-UID
 > > > > kerberos caches
 > > > The benefit for IMA would be that this would then tie the keys
@@ -18,18 +18,18 @@ On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 14:51 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
 > > > which is now hooked to the user namespace, and you join that user
 > > > namespace but your files don't have signatures, nothing will
 > > > execute anymore. That's now a side effect of joining this user
-> > > namespace unless we have a magic  exception. My feeling is,
+> > > namespace unless we have a magic  exception. My feeling is,
 > > > people may not like that...
 > > Agree, but I think the magic might be to populate the ima keyring
-> > with the parent on user_ns creation.  That way the user_ns owner
+> > with the parent on user_ns creation.  That way the user_ns owner
 > > can delete the parent keys if they don't like them, but by default
 > > the parent appraisal policy should just work.
 > 
 > That may add keys to your keyring but doesn't get you signatures on
-> your  files.
+> your  files.
 
-But it doesn't need to.  The only way we'd get a failure is if the file
-is already being appraised and we lose access to the key.  If the
+But it doesn't need to.  The only way we'd get a failure is if the file
+is already being appraised and we lose access to the key.  If the
 parent policy isn't appraisal, entering the IMA NS won't cause
 appraisal to be turned on unless the owner asks for it, in which case
 it's caveat emptor: As it works today, if as root I add a default
@@ -37,8 +37,3 @@ appraisal policy to IMA without either a key or xattrs, I get an
 unusable system.
 
 James
-
-_______________________________________________
-Containers mailing list
-Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
-https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 5b39505..8af7546 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -6,21 +6,20 @@
  "ref\02183a3b4-6270-d2e9-70ad-a7399eb1681c@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0"
  "ref\01521139535.5348.89.camel@HansenPartnership.com\0"
  "ref\00dc5b856-8dc6-7b5a-eeac-febd19f6498c@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0"
- "ref\00dc5b856-8dc6-7b5a-eeac-febd19f6498c-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org\0"
- "From\0James Bottomley <James.Bottomley-d9PhHud1JfjCXq6kfMZ53/egYHeGw8Jk@public.gmane.org>\0"
+ "From\0James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>\0"
  "Subject\0Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] ima: extend clone() with IMA namespace support\0"
  "Date\0Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:01:07 -0700\0"
- "To\0Stefan Berger <stefanb-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>"
- " Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>\0"
- "Cc\0mkayaalp-4hyTIkVWTs8LubxHQvXPfYdd74u8MsAO@public.gmane.org"
-  Mehmet Kayaalp <mkayaalp-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
-  sunyuqiong1988-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
-  containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
-  linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
-  david.safford-JJi787mZWgc@public.gmane.org
-  linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
-  linux-integrity-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
- " zohar-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org\0"
+ "To\0Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>"
+ " Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>\0"
+ "Cc\0mkayaalp@cs.binghamton.edu"
+  Mehmet Kayaalp <mkayaalp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
+  sunyuqiong1988@gmail.com
+  containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
+  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
+  david.safford@ge.com
+  linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
+  linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
+ " zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0"
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
  "On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 14:51 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:\n"
@@ -32,9 +31,9 @@
  "> > > > \n"
  "> > > > commit f36f8c75ae2e7d4da34f4c908cebdb4aa42c977e\n"
  "> > > > Author: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>\n"
- "> > > > Date:\302\240\302\240\302\240Tue Sep 24 10:35:19 2013 +0100\n"
+ "> > > > Date:   Tue Sep 24 10:35:19 2013 +0100\n"
  "> > > > \n"
- "> > > > \302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240KEYS: Add per-user_namespace registers for persistent\n"
+ "> > > >       KEYS: Add per-user_namespace registers for persistent\n"
  "> > > > per-UID\n"
  "> > > > kerberos caches\n"
  "> > > The benefit for IMA would be that this would then tie the keys\n"
@@ -43,29 +42,24 @@
  "> > > which is now hooked to the user namespace, and you join that user\n"
  "> > > namespace but your files don't have signatures, nothing will\n"
  "> > > execute anymore. That's now a side effect of joining this user\n"
- "> > > namespace unless we have a magic\302\240\302\240exception. My feeling is,\n"
+ "> > > namespace unless we have a magic  exception. My feeling is,\n"
  "> > > people may not like that...\n"
  "> > Agree, but I think the magic might be to populate the ima keyring\n"
- "> > with the parent on user_ns creation.\302\240\302\240That way the user_ns owner\n"
+ "> > with the parent on user_ns creation.  That way the user_ns owner\n"
  "> > can delete the parent keys if they don't like them, but by default\n"
  "> > the parent appraisal policy should just work.\n"
  "> \n"
  "> That may add keys to your keyring but doesn't get you signatures on\n"
- "> your \302\240files.\n"
+ "> your  files.\n"
  "\n"
- "But it doesn't need to. \302\240The only way we'd get a failure is if the file\n"
- "is already being appraised and we lose access to the key. \302\240If the\n"
+ "But it doesn't need to.  The only way we'd get a failure is if the file\n"
+ "is already being appraised and we lose access to the key.  If the\n"
  "parent policy isn't appraisal, entering the IMA NS won't cause\n"
  "appraisal to be turned on unless the owner asks for it, in which case\n"
  "it's caveat emptor: As it works today, if as root I add a default\n"
  "appraisal policy to IMA without either a key or xattrs, I get an\n"
  "unusable system.\n"
  "\n"
- "James\n"
- "\n"
- "_______________________________________________\n"
- "Containers mailing list\n"
- "Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org\n"
- https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
+ James
 
-73066eaf3eb3f9a55210dc0b68bbc6c6eef3e5c3368297a0789ab6487a39f896
+27b4a1381cdc651e2d781a5229cc2aa5dbec0054987f63d49eb82f822a087acd
