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

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

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.

Eric