On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:13:56PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Willy Tarreau pisze:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 03:15:14PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 19:50 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> >>> On 22/08/07, Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
Willy Tarreau pisze:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 03:15:14PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 19:50 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>>> On 22/08/07, Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 22/08/07, James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [snip]
> The
Willy Tarreau pisze:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 03:15:14PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 19:50 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 22/08/07, Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22/08/07, James Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
The previous problem is
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:13:56PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Willy Tarreau pisze:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 03:15:14PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 19:50 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 22/08/07, Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22/08/07, James
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 03:15:14PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 19:50 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > On 22/08/07, Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 22/08/07, James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > The previous problem is
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 19:50 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 22/08/07, Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 22/08/07, James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > The previous problem is theoretically unrelated. It arose via a separate
> > > mechanism which can't be
On 22/08/07, James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>
> > Yup, it is very interesting why no one noticed it.
>
> The new network controls are not enabled by default yet in distros.
That's why I enable most of these unsupported features :)
On 22/08/07, Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22/08/07, James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> >
> >
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Yup, it is very interesting why no one noticed it.
The new network controls are not enabled by default yet in distros.
- James
--
James Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
On 22/08/07, James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
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
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 16:29 +0200, 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
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
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
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 09:36 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 06:23 -0700, James Morris wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> >
> > > I got a problem with SELinux
> > > http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/console.log
> >
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 06:23 -0700, James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>
> > I got a problem with SELinux
> > http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/console.log
> >
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>
> > I got a problem with SELinux
> > http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/console.log
> >
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> I got a problem with SELinux
> http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/console.log
> http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/stable-config
Please set
Hi Michal,
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:10:44PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> On 22/08/07, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is the start of the review cycle for the stable 2.6.20.17
> > kernel release. This version catches up with 2.6.22.4, and 58
> > patches
Hi Willy,
On 22/08/07, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the start of the review cycle for the stable 2.6.20.17
> kernel release. This version catches up with 2.6.22.4, and 58
> patches will be posted as a response to this message.
>
> The following security issues are solved :
>
This is the start of the review cycle for the stable 2.6.20.17
kernel release. This version catches up with 2.6.22.4, and 58
patches will be posted as a response to this message.
The following security issues are solved :
CVE-2007-3105
CVE-2007-3848
CVE-2007-3851
The rolled up patch can be
This is the start of the review cycle for the stable 2.6.20.17
kernel release. This version catches up with 2.6.22.4, and 58
patches will be posted as a response to this message.
The following security issues are solved :
CVE-2007-3105
CVE-2007-3848
CVE-2007-3851
The rolled up patch can be
Hi Willy,
On 22/08/07, Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the start of the review cycle for the stable 2.6.20.17
kernel release. This version catches up with 2.6.22.4, and 58
patches will be posted as a response to this message.
The following security issues are solved :
Hi Michal,
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:10:44PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi Willy,
On 22/08/07, Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the start of the review cycle for the stable 2.6.20.17
kernel release. This version catches up with 2.6.22.4, and 58
patches will be posted
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
I got a problem with SELinux
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/console.log
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/stable-config
Please set
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, James Morris wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
I got a problem with SELinux
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/console.log
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/stable-config
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 06:23 -0700, James Morris wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
I got a problem with SELinux
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/console.log
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 09:36 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 06:23 -0700, James Morris wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
I got a problem with SELinux
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/console.log
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
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
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 16:29 +0200, 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
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
On 22/08/07, James Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Yup, it is very interesting why no one noticed it.
The new network controls are not enabled by default yet in distros.
- James
--
James Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body
On 22/08/07, Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22/08/07, James Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On 22/08/07, James Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Yup, it is very interesting why no one noticed it.
The new network controls are not enabled by default yet in distros.
That's why I enable most of these unsupported features :)
Unfortunately, I
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 19:50 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 22/08/07, Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22/08/07, James Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
The previous problem is theoretically unrelated. It arose via a separate
mechanism which can't be used at the
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 03:15:14PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 19:50 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 22/08/07, Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22/08/07, James Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
The previous problem is theoretically
38 matches
Mail list logo
