| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3232354.zp6VWdiO1X@sifl> Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 14:37:43 -0400 From: Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com> To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> Cc: linux-audit@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sgrubb@...hat.com, eparis@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] audit: use macros for unset inode and device values On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 11:40:34 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > On 15/08/05, Paul Moore wrote: > > I suspect it was lost in the noise when I mentioned it on v4, but how > > about changing AUDIT_DEV_UNSET to "(dev_t)-1"? > > I saw your comment only after resubmitting. I'm fine either way. If it > is needed for uapi later it can be changed then. Is it easy to change > in your workflow, or should I resubmit? I know you routinely change the > patch description, but could not remember if you have actually changed > the patch itself... With the exception of trivial merge conflicts, in general I like to avoid changing the body of the patches when I apply them; there are always going to be exceptions, but when possible I try to avoid it. I consider tweaking the patch subject lines pretty trivial, especially in the last case where the subject line had become wrong/invalid due to changes in the patch itself. -- paul moore security @ redhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists