On Monday 14 January 2008 1:50:39 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:22:10 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > Apparently the only new commit in there since the tree that was in > > 24-rc6-mm1 is 5d95575903fd3865b884952bd93c339d48725c33 adding some > > warning printk's. Would it be more productive to test against the full > > tree, or leaving out the one commit I already reverted? > > <voice=Emily Litella> Nevermind... </voice> :) > > The new commit won't apply with the other one reverted - it patches > security/selinux/netnode.c which was created by the problematic commit...
There have been quite a few changes in lblnet-2.6_testing since 2.6.24-rc6-mm1 so I would recommend taking the whole tree. I'm also not quite sure if simply reverting the "Convert the netif code to use ifindex values" patch would solve the problem as there are other patches in the rc6-mm1 tree that rely on skb->iif being valid (new code, not converted code). If you want to stick with a _relatively_ vanilla rc6-mm1 tree I would leave everything in and simply apply the following patch which solved the skb_clone()/iif problem: http://git.infradead.org/?p=users/pcmoore/lblnet-2.6_testing;a=commitdiff;h=02f1c89d6e36507476f78108a3dcc78538be460b -- paul moore linux security @ hp -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
