Venkat Yekkirala wrote: >>Okay, I guess we will just have to wait and see; I'm afarid >>this is still going >>to meet with disapproval > > How do you know? You haven't even seen the new patchset > yet; even I haven't.
I'm afraid because all of your comments to date seem to indicate that the secmark field will be used in a manner which is not compatibile with how it is used today. Please prove me wrong with the next patchset and I'll be happy. > I hope you quit proxying for James. I'm only trying to throw out a warning that some requirements/constraints are not being addressed based on the current discussions. I was "tagged" to push the entire patchset upstream and I just want to make sure that before I do everyone is happy. -- paul moore linux security @ hp -- redhat-lspp mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-lspp
