[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Xine.LNX.4.64.0708220929370.4968@us.intercode.com.au>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>
cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 22/08/07, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> >
> > > Oops, never mind - tail still follows secmark, so that shouldn't matter.
> > > So I'm not sure why we are getting a bad value for secmark here - should
> > > be initialized to zero and never modified unless there is an iptables
> > > secmark rule.
> >
> > Michal, do you see this in current git?
>
> No, I do not see this problem in 2.6.23. I had similar problem last
> month, but it is fixed now.
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/12/362
The previous problem is theoretically unrelated. It arose via a separate
mechanism which can't be used at the same as the one you're seeing now in
the logs.
So this either looks like a problem which has gone unnoticed and was
inadvertently fixed at some point, or is unique to the 2.6.20 stable
series.
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists