From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the lblnet tree Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:34:20 -0500 Message-ID: <200812101234.20822.paul.moore@hp.com> References: <20081208190708.1d2c37ec.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <200812081758.10731.paul.moore@hp.com> <493FF6E8.2090201@schaufler-ca.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from g5t0006.atlanta.hp.com ([15.192.0.43]:6277 "EHLO g5t0006.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753915AbYLJRey (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:34:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <493FF6E8.2090201@schaufler-ca.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Casey Schaufler Cc: James Morris , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, David Howells 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