On Wednesday 10 December 2008 12:05:44 pm Casey Schaufler wrote: > Paul Moore wrote: > > On Monday 08 December 2008 4:16:24 pm James Morris wrote: > >> On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Paul Moore wrote: > >>> James, is the security-testing tree rebased regularly or is > >>> suitable to back a tree against? > >> > >> No, it doesn't get rebased. > > > > Okay, experiment time. I think I managed to pull from all the > > right spots, merge everything appropriately and end up with a > > security/ directory that builds so I pushed it back out to the > > lblnet-2.6_next tree. I'm not quite sure the proper etiquette here > > but I had to fix Casey's patch a bit since it would apply cleanly; > > Casey if you could take a look I would appreciate it (it isn't > > exactly like what Stephen posted earlier but it is pretty darn > > close). > > The Smack Verification Laboratory reports that lblnet-2.6_next is > working as expected for UDP and TCP. Sounds expensive :) Thanks for checking, assuming no problems I'll push those patches with the rest of the labeled networking patches when the next merge window opens. -- paul moore linux @ hp -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
