From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755570AbYIQWZU (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:25:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756605AbYIQWYt (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:24:49 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:56991 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755905AbYIQWYr (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:24:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:24:07 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Paul Moore Cc: sds@tycho.nsa.gov, jmorris@namei.org, rjw@sisk.pl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Bug #11500] /proc/net bug related to selinux Message-Id: <20080917152407.76230f0c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <200809171812.59693.paul.moore@hp.com> References: <200809171724.36269.paul.moore@hp.com> <20080917144842.7df59f9e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200809171812.59693.paul.moore@hp.com> 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 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.