On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 08:50 -0400, Jeff Burke wrote:
Subrata Modak wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 08:25 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 17:14 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 08:42 -0400, Jeff Burke wrote:
Subrata Modak wrote:
Hi Serge,
On Mon,
On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 22:18 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Subrata Modak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On 4/2/08, Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 13:07 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Stephen
On 4/2/08, Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 13:07 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
This patch, which is independent of Jeff's patch, updates the
selinux
testsuite
Quoting Subrata Modak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On 4/2/08, Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 13:07 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
This patch, which is independent of
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 17:14 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 08:42 -0400, Jeff Burke wrote:
Subrata Modak wrote:
Hi Serge,
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 09:02 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Not this week, sorry.
Will be anything forthcoming this month in the
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 08:25 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 17:14 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 08:42 -0400, Jeff Burke wrote:
Subrata Modak wrote:
Hi Serge,
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 09:02 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Not this week,
Subrata Modak wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 08:25 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 17:14 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 08:42 -0400, Jeff Burke wrote:
Subrata Modak wrote:
Hi Serge,
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 09:02 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Not this
This patch, which is independent of Jeff's patch, updates the selinux
testsuite to run under Fedora 9, and does no harm on Fedora 8.
While creating this, I noticed two other things that ultimately need
fixing:
1) The sbin_deprecated.patch adds domain_dyntrans_type() to all the test
domains. If
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
This patch, which is independent of Jeff's patch, updates the selinux
testsuite to run under Fedora 9, and does no harm on Fedora 8.
While creating this, I noticed two other things that ultimately need
fixing:
1) The sbin_deprecated.patch adds
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 13:07 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
This patch, which is independent of Jeff's patch, updates the selinux
testsuite to run under Fedora 9, and does no harm on Fedora 8.
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 13:07 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
This patch, which is independent of Jeff's patch, updates the selinux
testsuite to run under Fedora 9, and does no harm on Fedora 8.
While creating this, I noticed two other things
Hi Stephen,
Do you have any forthcoming updates for LTP-Selinux ?
Regards--
Subrata
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 12:25 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 11:08 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Jeff Burke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Jeff Burke wrote:
Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 08:34 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 17:55 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Do you have any forthcoming updates for LTP-Selinux ?
Not presently, no. However, I would like to note that they seem to be
broken on Fedora 9 / rawhide,
Subrata Modak wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:08 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 18:56 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
Stephen,
Any new Patches for LTP-Selinux ?
I don't have any updates, no.
I have noticed that on x86_64, there are a number of FAILs that are not
present
Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 08:48 -0500, Jeff Burke wrote:
Subrata Modak wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:08 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 18:56 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
Stephen,
Any new Patches for LTP-Selinux ?
I don't have any updates, no.
I
Jeff Burke wrote:
Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 08:48 -0500, Jeff Burke wrote:
Subrata Modak wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:08 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 18:56 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
Stephen,
Any new Patches for LTP-Selinux ?
I don't have any
Quoting Jeff Burke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Jeff Burke wrote:
Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 08:48 -0500, Jeff Burke wrote:
Subrata Modak wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:08 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 18:56 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
Stephen,
Any
Stephen,
Any new Patches for LTP-Selinux ?
Regards--
Subrata
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 07:20 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:21 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Here is a patch against this morning's ltp cvs snapshot to implement
Stephen's suggestion of setting
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:08 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 18:56 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
Stephen,
Any new Patches for LTP-Selinux ?
I don't have any updates, no.
I have noticed that on x86_64, there are a number of FAILs that are not
present on x86, in
Quoting Subrata Modak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Sergei,
I have merged Stephen?? Patches sent on 24/01/2008, which modifies:
ltp/testcases/kernel/security/selinux-testsuite/README
ltp/testcases/kernel/security/selinux-testsuite/misc/sbin_deprecated.patch
Could you let me know whether
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 16:43 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Subrata Modak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Sergei,
I have merged Stephen?? Patches sent on 24/01/2008, which modifies:
ltp/testcases/kernel/security/selinux-testsuite/README
Quoting Subrata Modak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Sergei,
I have merged Stephen?? Patches sent on 24/01/2008, which modifies:
ltp/testcases/kernel/security/selinux-testsuite/README
ltp/testcases/kernel/security/selinux-testsuite/misc/sbin_deprecated.patch
Could you let me know whether this
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 11:37 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 07:20 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:21 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Here is a patch against this morning's ltp cvs snapshot to
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 11:37 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 07:20 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:21 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Here is a patch against this morning's ltp cvs snapshot to
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 11:37 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 07:20 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:21 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Here is a
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 11:37 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 07:20 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:21 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Here is a
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:21 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Here is a patch against this morning's ltp cvs snapshot to implement
Stephen's suggestion of setting expand-check=0 for the duration of
the policy load. This allowed me to get rid of the hack
++domain_type(test_create_no_t) in
27 matches
Mail list logo
