On Wednesday, November 05, 2014 05:25:37 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > On 14/11/05, Paul Moore wrote: > > In retrospect, we could probably do better. I don't think it should be an > > audit record, but I can see the point that a backtrace and scary WARNING! > > display are probably a bit too much. > > > > Richard, how about converting this WARN_ONCE() to a printk_once(), or > > similar? > > I'd be agreeable to that. While I was a bit concerned that a > WARN_ONCE() could be lost in the noise (evidently that's not the case!) > a printk_once() would more likely get lost in the noise. Would it make > sense to make it a bit less infrequent than printk_once() and rate-limit > it at say, one per 5 seconds or more? Let's just go with printk_once() for right now. We probably need to have a better, more consistent approach to error messages not related to the normal access control stuff, however, I'd like to fix this for the v3.18-rcX releases and that is a bit out of scope for right now. Ideally I'd like to fix it this week. Richard, any chance you can submit a patch by the end of the day on Tuesday? It really should be trivial; if you can't let me know and I'll take care of it. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
