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? -- James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review
- From: "Michal Piotrowski" <michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com>
- Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review
- References:
- [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review
- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review
- From: "Michal Piotrowski" <michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com>
- Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review
- From: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
- Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review
- From: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
- Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review
- From: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
- [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 11/23] make atomic_read() and atomic_set() behavior consistent on m32r
- Next by Date: Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-rc3-mm1 Kernel panic - not syncing: Can't create pid_1 cachep
- Previous by thread: Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review
- Next by thread: Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review
- Index(es):
 |