Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for September 3

From: Andrew Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:22:48 -0700

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:03:41 -0700
[email-masked] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:

> Andrew Morton <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:31:01 -0700
> > [email-masked] (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.