From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <47866A60.40002@tresys.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:56:32 -0500 From: Joshua Brindle MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Moore CC: Chad Hanson , James Morris , selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, cpebenito@tresys.com, Venkat Yekkirala Subject: Re: Q: SECMARK controls on forwarded packets References: <200801082330.58907.paul.moore@hp.com> <200801091548.10359.paul.moore@hp.com> <200801101147.06142.paul.moore@hp.com> In-Reply-To: <200801101147.06142.paul.moore@hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Paul Moore wrote: > On Thursday 10 January 2008 10:32:10 am Chad Hanson wrote: >> These controls look good to us... > > Great. I'm assuming the lack of complaints means others are happy with > this as well. > I haven't gotten around to looking at the rfc in detail but it looks like the secmark/external labeling concepts are being merged again when we already decided to keep them as separate systems. Is the claim here that it isn't possible to do forwarding controls without interaction between them? -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.