Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:22:48 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: Tree for September 3 |
| |
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:03:41 -0700 ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> 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.
fyi, that machine is x86_32-on-FC5. My x86_64-on-FC6 test box is also running selinux and has the same bug.
| |