On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote: > On 22/08/07, James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. - James -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
