From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for September 3 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:22:48 -0700 Message-ID: <20080904152248.50773a6d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20080903191619.6b6b230e.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080903214634.ea17ff53.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080903223318.84b6ce8b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080904012544.cabed847.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080904015701.5959623a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080904104554.32ffebea.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080904113408.d47c65f6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080904134148.0fde4508.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yhlu.kernel@gmail.com, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, dwmw2@infradead.org, sam@ravnborg.org, johnstul@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:03:41 -0700 ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > Andrew Morton writes: > > > On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:31:01 -0700 > > ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > > > >> >> are you sure it's a plain tree of mine, without any of the patches > >> >> floating around between Eric/Al? > >> > > >> > yup, it's yesterday's mainline. > >> > >> Does the problem happen if you disable selinux? > >> > >> This feels like a case of selinux being over zealous. > > > > yeah, adding `selinux=0' to the boot command line fixes it. > > The proc generic directory back structure is the same. As requested by > the selinux folks. So I don't expect there is much more we can do on > the /proc side. > > When we get the interaction bug between the VFS and /proc/net fixed I wonder > if there will be some more selinux fall out. Something to think about. fyi, that machine is x86_32-on-FC5. My x86_64-on-FC6 test box is also running selinux and has the same bug. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756888AbYIDWXu (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:23:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754675AbYIDWXl (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:23:41 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:55252 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754622AbYIDWXk (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:23:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:22:48 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yhlu.kernel@gmail.com, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, dwmw2@infradead.org, sam@ravnborg.org, johnstul@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for September 3 Message-Id: <20080904152248.50773a6d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20080903191619.6b6b230e.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080903214634.ea17ff53.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080903223318.84b6ce8b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080904012544.cabed847.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080904015701.5959623a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080904104554.32ffebea.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080904113408.d47c65f6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080904134148.0fde4508.akpm@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:03:41 -0700 ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > Andrew Morton writes: > > > On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:31:01 -0700 > > ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > > > >> >> are you sure it's a plain tree of mine, without any of the patches > >> >> floating around between Eric/Al? > >> > > >> > yup, it's yesterday's mainline. > >> > >> Does the problem happen if you disable selinux? > >> > >> This feels like a case of selinux being over zealous. > > > > yeah, adding `selinux=0' to the boot command line fixes it. > > The proc generic directory back structure is the same. As requested by > the selinux folks. So I don't expect there is much more we can do on > the /proc side. > > When we get the interaction bug between the VFS and /proc/net fixed I wonder > if there will be some more selinux fall out. Something to think about. fyi, that machine is x86_32-on-FC5. My x86_64-on-FC6 test box is also running selinux and has the same bug.