Re: [PATCH] LSPP audit enablement: storing selinux ocontext and scontext

On Tuesday 30 August 2005 10:41, Dustin Kirkland wrote: I think the patches should be developed to the -mm tree, but we will need to test them in something more stable. When we did the audit development, we picked an "in house" kernel so we could make changes and get everyone to test it. The pure -mm tree may be too unstable to get people to test with it and use on a daily basis. My guess is that there is going to be about 30 people working and testing various pieces. While some people don't mind being at the cutting edge and can rescue themselves if something goes wrong...not everyone can. We need something that is a little more stable for a group that big to be working with. Also think about bug reporting. When someone finds a bug, we'll need to be on the same kernel to reproduce it and make fixes. Andrew also sent a note to lkml saying that too many of the patches he was getting were being immediately followed up with a correction to it. This means the patches did not get enough testing before being sent. I really hope that we test the patches for a little while and make corrections before sending it upstream. Speaking of which, you guys probably have no idea about the amount of problems userspace has had trying to support broken and buggy old kernels. I want to see whole units of work get sent upstream as a unit as much as possible. For example, the netlink comm had 2 major revisions while we worked on it. I now have 3 different communication techniques to support. What's worse, I have no way of telling which method is being used. -Steve