From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Labeled networking patches for 2.6.26 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080410.154720.05259434.davem@davemloft.net> References: <200804101725.59604.paul.moore@hp.com> <200804101812.36542.paul.moore@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jmorris@namei.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov To: paul.moore@hp.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:43099 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757425AbYDJWrT (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:47:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200804101812.36542.paul.moore@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Paul Moore Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:12:36 -0400 > On Thursday 10 April 2008 6:04:32 pm James Morris wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Paul Moore wrote: > > > Just a quick follow-up on testing, I've run this for a few hours on > > > two Fedora systems with both labeled and unlabeled IPsec in use > > > with SAs rekeying every 5 minutes and didn't notice anything evil. > > > > > > At this point I'd strip the "RFC" from the patchset and ask that > > > they be considered for inclusion in 2.6.26 assuming there are no > > > objections. > > > > I suggest pushing them via DaveM's tree, unless they depend on > > anything in my tree. > > Okay. It sounds like DaveM is working through a backlog right now, if I > don't see them in his tree by next week I'll resubmit them. I'll pull this stuff in at the next opportunity. Thanks guys.