On Tuesday 30 August 2005 13:21, Dustin Kirkland wrote: But that's just it, if you're not careful when issueing a panic, there _is_ a potential of record lossage. Take for instance this case: We're in context of a "mkdir()" system call. We've determined that this inode is watched, so then we allocate audit_aux_data memory for it to place on the audit context. The only problem is that we fail this memory allocation. Since the inode has already been created, if we panic the system, there will be no record of the transaction. I have to wonder if the inode even makes it to disk before we panic. But this assumption is probably a bit shakey. Refer to: Message-Id: <200508291850.23867.tinytim(a)us.ibm.com&gt; -tim