On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 9:10 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:28 AM Paul Moore wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 12:15 PM Paul Moore wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Fedora Kernel People,
> > >
> > > The SELinux folks recently stumbled across some test failures due to a
> > >
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:28 AM Paul Moore wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 12:15 PM Paul Moore wrote:
> >
> > Hi Fedora Kernel People,
> >
> > The SELinux folks recently stumbled across some test failures due to a
> > change in the Rawhide kernel config that happened this week while we
> >
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 12:15 PM Paul Moore wrote:
>
> Hi Fedora Kernel People,
>
> The SELinux folks recently stumbled across some test failures due to a
> change in the Rawhide kernel config that happened this week while we
> are at -rc7 (see lore archive link below). Now, to be clear, I think
Hi Fedora Kernel People,
The SELinux folks recently stumbled across some test failures due to a
change in the Rawhide kernel config that happened this week while we
are at -rc7 (see lore archive link below). Now, to be clear, I think
the Kconfig change is good, TIOCSTI is generally pretty scary,
From: Jiri Benc on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/2286#note_1273813728
Scratch that, this is not about the bpf object files but about the (host
native) binary running them. Sorry for my misunderstanding.
___
kernel
From: Jiri Benc on gitlab.com
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/2286#note_1273804191
This is a good workaround. I wonder though whether it should not be more
generic. We already have custom code to install the bpf selftest files (since
the upstream `make install` does not
