Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Fix\s+SELinux\s+for\s+removal\s+of\s+i

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Fix\s+SELinux\s+for\s+removal\s+of\s+i_sock\s*$/: 6 ]

Total 6 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] Fix SELinux for removal of i_sock (score: 1): Author: Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:06:37 -0500; This patch against -bk eliminates the use of i_sock by SELinux as it appears to have been removed recently, breaking the build of SELinux in -bk. Simply replacing the i_sock test with an S_ISSOCK te; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00025.html (10,165 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] Fix SELinux for removal of i_sock (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:35:20 -0800; Applied, thanks Stephen.; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00027.html (8,476 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] Fix SELinux for removal of i_sock (score: 1): Author: Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:13:53 -0400; So, just for clarification, since a S_ISSOCK test is not necessarily equivalent to an i_sock test (in the case of inodes of socket files in the filesystem), was removing i_sock truly the right choice; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00166.html (9,744 bytes)
4. [PATCH] Fix SELinux for removal of i_sock (score: 1): Author: Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:06:37 -0500; Hi, This patch against -bk eliminates the use of i_sock by SELinux as it appears to have been removed recently, breaking the build of SELinux in -bk. Simply replacing the i_sock test with an S_ISSOCK; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01161.html (10,165 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] Fix SELinux for removal of i_sock (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:35:20 -0800; Applied, thanks Stephen.; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01163.html (8,544 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] Fix SELinux for removal of i_sock (score: 1): Author: Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:13:53 -0400; So, just for clarification, since a S_ISSOCK test is not necessarily equivalent to an i_sock test (in the case of inodes of socket files in the filesystem), was removing i_sock truly the right choice; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01302.html (9,852 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 6
Page: [1]