Messages in this thread | | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:03:41 -0700 | Subject | Re: linux-next: Tree for September 3 |
| |
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 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.
Eric
| |