On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:31:30AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
...
> >
> > *cringe*
> >
> > I don't like it. That really should be a responsiblity of specific
> > ->show();
> > "I'm going to take that mutex, bugger off if we are in execve()" makes a lot
> > more sense than having e.g. seq_
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:31:30AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> I don't know why we allow "chmod +x" on some proc files, notably net-related.
> Is it a bug?
# ls -l /proc/{1,157}/net/packet
-r--r--r-- 1 root 0 0 Jul 30 23:01 /proc/1/net/packet
-r--r--r-- 1 root 0 0 Jul 30 23:01 /proc/157/net
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 04:07:25PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 03:50:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > Al, David, any bright ideas on how to best fix this?
> >
> > Have the seq_xxx() code throw an error if current->in_execve is true. I
> >
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 03:50:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Al, David, any bright ideas on how to best fix this?
>
> Have the seq_xxx() code throw an error if current->in_execve is true. I can't
> think of any circumstance where execve() should be reading anythi
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Al, David, any bright ideas on how to best fix this?
Have the seq_xxx() code throw an error if current->in_execve is true. I can't
think of any circumstance where execve() should be reading anything that uses
seq_xxx().
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the l
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 03:19:40PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> [ 26.747484] ==
> [ 26.748725] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 26.748725] 3.13.0-11331-g6f008e72cd11 #1162 Not tainted
> [ 26.748725] ---
6 matches
Mail list logo
