Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763844AbXHVRun (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:50:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764148AbXHVRud (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:50:33 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.233]:8686 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761735AbXHVRuc (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:50:32 -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=aQVwiZlGLD0cFug/kbkD8js5Z8HSY2AarZsnRN7ouzOeWWh7psWeGLIyTaTo/jY0Ch7xnt2igNuE6f5RMp7V+aXGoJlR0P4zq87nWmLDTcjIoXGqlSHn42yKasFf+VfJWPZNqjrQswMWZiDERlhjlYvbwG+5z5wrnXH9T2bt6J8= Message-ID: <6bffcb0e0708221050s68975158k7a3b27c7c30f455d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:50:29 +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: <6bffcb0e0708220946hc2943f5jdb33215cdfab08d1@mail.gmail.com> 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> <6bffcb0e0708220946hc2943f5jdb33215cdfab08d1@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1705 Lines: 45 On 22/08/07, Michal Piotrowski wrote: > On 22/08/07, James Morris wrote: [snip] > > 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 Ok, I narrowed the problem to 2.6.20.7. There are a few net changes http://eu.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.20.7 any suggestions? I also have seen this avc on 2.6.20.6 during reboot [ 2333.905944] audit(1187803699.273:271): avc: denied { send } for saddr=192.168.1.70 src=48591 daddr=72.14.217.189 dest=80 netif=eth0 scontext=user_u:system_r:unconfined_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 tclass=packet [ 2334.420598] audit(1187803699.789:272): avc: denied { send } for saddr=192.168.1.70 src=47248 daddr=66.249.91.18 dest=80 netif=eth0 scontext=user_u:system_r:unconfined_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0 tclass=packet so the roots of the problem may lie between 2.6.20.4 and 2.6.20.6 http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/console2.log 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/