(off-list ancestor, not in this archive)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough · Eric W. Biederman <hidden> · 2014-03-05
Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough · Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> · 2014-03-07
Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough · David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> · 2014-03-08
Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough · Steve Grubb <hidden> · 2014-03-08
Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough · David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> · 2014-03-08
Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough · Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> · 2014-03-08
Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough · David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> · 2014-03-10
Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough · Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> · 2014-03-10

Re: [RFC][PATCH] audit: Simplify by assuming the callers socket buffer is large enough

From: Steve Grubb <hidden>
Date: 2014-03-08 03:27:33
Also in: lkml

On Friday, March 07, 2014 07:48:01 PM David Miller wrote:

From: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 17:52:02 -0500

quoted

Audit is non-tolerant to failure and loss.

Netlink is not a loss-less transport.

Perhaps. But in all our testing over the years its been very good.

-Steve