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

[Michal Piotrowski]

On 22/08/07, James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Yup, it is very interesting why no one noticed it. Binary search in progress:
good - 2.6.20.4
bad - 2.6.20.8

Regards,
Michal

-- 
LOG
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/log/
-
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/