From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [Bug #11500] /proc/net bug related to selinux Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:53:42 -0700 Message-ID: References: <200809171724.36269.paul.moore@hp.com> <20080917144842.7df59f9e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200809171812.59693.paul.moore@hp.com> <20080917152407.76230f0c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080917152407.76230f0c.akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org> (Andrew Morton's message of "Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:24:07 -0700") Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Andrew Morton Cc: Paul Moore , sds-+05T5uksL2qpZYMLLGbcSA@public.gmane.org, jmorris-gx6/JNMH7DfYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Andrew Morton writes: > On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:12:59 -0400 > Paul Moore wrote: > >> > We don't even know the extent of the damage yet. Which distros were >> > affected? With which versions of which userspace packages? >> >> Can I assume that the "right" thing to do would be to find the problem >> and revert whatever change caused the issue, yes? Or are we happy to >> wait and see since the fallout so far has been minimal? > > I don't think a revert is justified after all this time. afaik I'm the > first person to notice the problem, and it's been out there for > multiple months. > > However it would be good if we could find some not-completely-stinky > way of making the old userspace work. > > otoh, people who are shipping 2.6.25- and 2.6.26-based distros probably > wouldn't want such a patch in their kernels anyway. Disable selinux? Get a selinux mystic to update that selinux policy. I bet it is a one line change to each the policy about /proc/net as a symlink. Although I am puzzled why we don't get the same label as /proc/net as a directory had. Eric