From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mikel L. Matthews" Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] NetLabel Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:20:57 -0500 Message-ID: <44772AE9.1060907@argus-systems.com> References: <44760E29.4070407@hp.com> <44771EFB.6030203@hp.com> <44772824.6090505@argus-systems.com> <447729B7.4060702@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Morris , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, James Morris , Stephen Smalley Return-path: Received: from mail.argus-systems.com ([66.209.209.162]:62973 "EHLO ranger.argus-systems.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750994AbWEZQVF (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 May 2006 12:21:05 -0400 To: Paul Moore In-Reply-To: <447729B7.4060702@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Same issue, I would drop them. Paul Moore wrote: > Mikel L. Matthews wrote: >> Paul Moore wrote: >>> James Morris wrote: >> > > Outgoing fragment *should* be labeled correctly assuming the Linux base > network stack does the right thing (I haven't tested this yet). The > issue we are discussing here is what to do about incoming packets where > the fragments are not consistently labeled. > -- Thanks, Mike Mikel L. Matthews Chief Technology Officer Innovative Security Systems, Inc. (dba Argus Systems Group) 1809 Woodfield Dr. Savoy IL 61874 +1-217-355-6308 www.argus-systems.com