Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review

[James Morris]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:

> On 22/08/07, James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/