On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:03:41 -0700 ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:31:01 -0700 > > ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
