On Monday 31 December 2007 4:46:09 pm James Morris wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Paul Moore wrote:
> > I'm pretty certain this is an uninitialized value problem now and not a
> > use-after-free issue. The invalid/garbage ->iif value seems to only
> > happen on packets that are generated locally an
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Paul Moore wrote:
> I'm pretty certain this is an uninitialized value problem now and not a
> use-after-free issue. The invalid/garbage ->iif value seems to only happen
> on packets that are generated locally and sent back into the stack for local
> consumption, e.g. loopb
On Monday 31 December 2007 12:13:32 pm Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 December 2007 4:52:03 pm James Morris wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Dec 2007, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > As James said I'm away right now and computer access is limited.
> > > However, I'm stuck in the airport right now and spent some
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 4:52:03 pm James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2007, Paul Moore wrote:
> > As James said I'm away right now and computer access is limited.
> > However, I'm stuck in the airport right now and spent some time looking
> > at the code ... Based on what has been found so
On Wednesday 26 December 2007 4:52:03 pm James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2007, Paul Moore wrote:
> > As James said I'm away right now and computer access is limited.
> > However, I'm stuck in the airport right now and spent some time looking
> > at the code ... Based on what has been found so
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:16:25 +1100 (EST) James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, James Morris wrote:
>
> > What does the following say ?
> >
> > # sestatus && rpm -q selinux-policy
>
> Don't worry about that -- I reproduced it with Paul Moore's git tree:
> git://git.infr
On Thu, 26 Dec 2007, Paul Moore wrote:
> As James said I'm away right now and computer access is limited.
> However, I'm stuck in the airport right now and spent some time looking
> at the code ... Based on what has been found so far I wonder if the
> problem isn't a race but a problem of skb-
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:52:56 +1100, James Morris said:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:34:26 +1100, James Morris said:
> >
> > > Can you post your .config ?
> >
> > The gzip'ed config as of when I quit bisecting is attached. It's probably
> > not dir
TECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 7:16 am
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc6-mm1 - git-lblnet.patch and networking horkage
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, James Morris wrote:
> What does the following say ?
>
> # sestatus && rpm -q selinux-policy
Don't worry about that -- I reproduced it with Paul Moore's git tree:
git://git.infradead.org/users/pcmoore/lblnet-2.6_testing
(under current -mm, the e1000 driver doesn't find my e
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:34:26 +1100, James Morris said:
>
> > Can you post your .config ?
>
> The gzip'ed config as of when I quit bisecting is attached. It's probably
> not directly usable unless you have a quilt tree that's positioned fairly
> cl
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:34:26 +1100, James Morris said:
> Can you post your .config ?
The gzip'ed config as of when I quit bisecting is attached. It's probably
not directly usable unless you have a quilt tree that's positioned fairly
close to git-lblnet.patch.
> Also, is that the plain upstream
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I already checked, it's not a slam-dunk to just 'patch -R' as there's 3 or 4
> conflicts where later patches need massaging/reverting as well.
>
> It's a problem with both 'classic RCU' and 'preempt RCU' (that was my *first*
> guess as to the cause)
13 matches
Mail list logo
