Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932785AbXHVQrO (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:47:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762291AbXHVQrE (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:47:04 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.177]:19591 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763493AbXHVQrB (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:47:01 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=XQP5/oKGCVSVv37C0ZOaKEPF1f2eoiGFPCWbUnG/zIWihIC1wO0B8FxrfzkJNhSNWorh9ONKXbsaUfHSIcW7+uK/1c+TNhxylzRPn8fHjmRmX0AkEv+RrZav3Uc28cXlgHS71mifFRbGTwODscrUyuAr+47FM9ZxKCmSWjroR8w= Message-ID: <6bffcb0e0708220946hc2943f5jdb33215cdfab08d1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:46:58 +0200 From: "Michal Piotrowski" To: "James Morris" Subject: Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review Cc: "Stephen Smalley" , "Willy Tarreau" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070822083844.%N@1wt.eu> <6bffcb0e0708220410u4ab3978eq18786ac186e88c7d@mail.gmail.com> <1187789765.1451.310.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <1187790174.1451.315.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <6bffcb0e0708220729j7b9afcf3v4edef68cc974c08d@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1418 Lines: 41 On 22/08/07, James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote: > > > On 22/08/07, James Morris 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/