From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Morris Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] VFS/Security: Rework inode_getsecurity and callers to return resulting buffer Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 08:14:48 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: References: <1193079974.30930.2.camel@moss-terrapins.epoch.ncsc.mil> <1193080250.30930.6.camel@moss-terrapins.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20071026000210.GB2795@vino.hallyn.com> <1193410245.27034.29.camel@moss-terrapins.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20071026150731.GB539@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "David P. Quigley" , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20071026150731.GB539@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > It wouldn't be much effort to rebase this patch against Linus's latest > > tree. I am assuming that the static lsm patch is in there based on the > > recent discussion on LKML? > > Oh, sorry for the two emails. > > Yeah it's in 2.6.24. So a rebase will be necessary anyway. That code may still change -- Arjan's update, for example. -- James Morris