From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: LC Bruzenak Subject: Re: user message limits Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:30:45 -0600 Message-ID: <1233174645.30154.164.camel@homeserver> References: <1233100868.30154.103.camel@homeserver> <200901281215.16996.sgrubb@redhat.com> <1233164667.30154.142.camel@homeserver> <200901281514.05301.sgrubb@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200901281514.05301.sgrubb@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com To: Steve Grubb Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 15:14 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Wednesday 28 January 2009 12:44:27 pm LC Bruzenak wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 12:15 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: > ... > > > I'm trying to avoid a lot of retry logic on the sending side, where if a > > failure occurs, we would truncate and resend until it passes. I guess if > > I were certain that 7K is always going to fit I could artificially clamp > > my own input there, but it seems better if it were universally constant. > > For the time being, you'll need to clamp your input to maybe about 950 chars. > In all the work I've done patching everything, I've never needed to send more > than 200 bytes or so. > That's because maybe you have never worked on a MLS system where all cross-level cut/paste transfers were required to be audited in toto. :) I'll have to put in some retry logic on my end. Probably would regardless. LCB. -- LC (Lenny) Bruzenak lenny@magitekltd.com