Dan,
I see I should also backport unlabelenet stuff.

Yes, but why is this bug assigned to selinux-policy, it is a kernel bug.

This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion
in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has 
requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential
inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed 
products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release.

Yes, there is a bug for kernel. 

I just wanted to test it also by Milos and Karel because of policy changes.

Everything what you need to know is stated in the original kernel bug together with tests.

The policy changes just added interfaces to support secmark.

Basically you will make sure secmark.te policy can be compiled/loaded which means no interfaces miss.

So this is a test scenario for you:

---

cat > secmark.te << EOF

policy_module(secmark, 1.0)

# Type Definitions

require {
 type xguest_t;
 type avahi_t;
 attribute domain;
}

attribute external_packet;
type internal_packet_t;
corenet_packet(internal_packet_t)

type dns_external_packet_t, external_packet;
corenet_packet(dns_external_packet_t)

type http_external_packet_t, external_packet;
corenet_packet(http_external_packet_t)

type external_packet_t, external_packet;
corenet_packet(external_packet_t)

EOF


# make -f /usr/share/selinux/devel/Makefile secmark.pp
# semodule -i secmark.pp
# semodule -d unlabelednet

Fixed in selinux-policy-3.7.19-115.el6

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-1511.html