On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Cong Wang
wrote:
> This is what I
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 1:33 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Paul Moore
> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:15:00 -0400
>
>> However, that's not the case is it? Unless I missed something, the
>> fix that Cong Wang is advocating (rework the audit multicast code), is
>> a change that I have said I'm not g
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> It's the end of my day, and commitments over the weekend will limit
> how much additional testing/work I can do so I went ahead and just
> posted a simple revert to netdev, it should be in your inbox already.
> Please fix this, either through a
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
This is what I did in the follow up patch. I attach the updated version
in
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:33 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Paul Moore
>> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:15:00 -0400
>>
>>> However, that's not the case is it? Unless I missed something, the
>>> fix that Cong Wang is advocating (rework the audit
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:33 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Paul Moore
> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:15:00 -0400
>
>> However, that's not the case is it? Unless I missed something, the
>> fix that Cong Wang is advocating (rework the audit multicast code), is
>> a change that I have said I'm not g
From: Paul Moore
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:15:00 -0400
> However, that's not the case is it? Unless I missed something, the
> fix that Cong Wang is advocating (rework the audit multicast code), is
> a change that I have said I'm not going to accept during the -rc
> phase. It has been a few days
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 2016-10-21 11:02, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Cong Wang
>> > wrote:
>> >> This is what I did in the follow up patch. I attach the updated version
>> >
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> This is what I did in the follow up patch. I attach the updated version
>>> in this email for you to review ...
>>
>> I think there is s
On 2016-10-21 11:02, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> This is what I did in the follow up patch. I attach the updated version
> >> in this email for you to review ...
> >
> > I think there is still som
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> This is what I did in the follow up patch. I attach the updated version
>> in this email for you to review ...
>
> I think there is still some confusion. The second patch you posted
> still
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On 10/20/2016 02:52 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> A kernel warning inside __
On 10/21/2016 12:47 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> Since you want to test SELinux anyway, please test the attached one.
>>
>
> Finally my kernel config is friendly to SELinux, and now there are several
> tests fails:
>
>
> Test Summary Report
> -
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> Since you want to test SELinux anyway, please test the attached one.
>
Finally my kernel config is friendly to SELinux, and now there are several
tests fails:
Test Summary Report
---
sysctl/test (Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Fai
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2016 02:52 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
A kernel warning inside __local_bh_enable_ip() was reported by people
running
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>> On 10/20/2016 02:52 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> A kernel warning inside __local_bh_enable_ip() was reported by people
>>> running SELinux, this is caused due to some SELinux functions
>>>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>> On 10/20/2016 02:52 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> A kernel warning inside __local_bh_enable_ip() was reported by people
>>> running SELinux, this is caused due to some SELinux functions
>>> (
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 10/20/2016 02:52 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> A kernel warning inside __local_bh_enable_ip() was reported by people
>> running SELinux, this is caused due to some SELinux functions
>> (indirectly) call peernet2id() with IRQ disabled in proces
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Nicolas Dichtel
wrote:
>
> Now, we see that "it's needed" and that the analysis was wrong. If a race is
> introduced by this patch, it will be hard to detect and fix it.
It is _not_ needed for protection, it is needed to shut up a warning, I thought
this is pretty
On 10/20/2016 02:52 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> A kernel warning inside __local_bh_enable_ip() was reported by people
> running SELinux, this is caused due to some SELinux functions
> (indirectly) call peernet2id() with IRQ disabled in process context,
> when we re-enable BH with IRQ disabled kernel com
Le 20/10/2016 à 08:52, Cong Wang a écrit :
> A kernel warning inside __local_bh_enable_ip() was reported by people
> running SELinux, this is caused due to some SELinux functions
> (indirectly) call peernet2id() with IRQ disabled in process context,
> when we re-enable BH with IRQ disabled kernel c
A kernel warning inside __local_bh_enable_ip() was reported by people
running SELinux, this is caused due to some SELinux functions
(indirectly) call peernet2id() with IRQ disabled in process context,
when we re-enable BH with IRQ disabled kernel complains. Shut up this
warning by saving IRQ contex
22 matches
Mail list logo
