Re: dtrace/cyclic deadlock

on 26/11/2010 21:10 Artem Belevich said the following: > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> I will appreciate reviews and testing. >> >> Should I wait for any pending comments? >> Otherwise I am confident enough in the patch to commit it. > > Some time back I used to have re

Re: dtrace/cyclic deadlock

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> I will appreciate reviews and testing. > > Should I wait for any pending comments? > Otherwise I am confident enough in the patch to commit it. Some time back I used to have reproducible crash related to dtrace/cyclic: http://unix.derkeiler.

Re: dtrace/cyclic deadlock

on 23/11/2010 15:26 Andriy Gapon said the following: > on 23/11/2010 08:33 Andriy Gapon said the following: >> I think that this is quite similar to what we do for per-CPU caches in UMA >> and >> so the same approach should work here. >> That is, as in (Open)Solaris, the data should be accessed on

Re: Simple kernel attack using socketpair.

I run it on 8.0 and CURRENT and got fatal double fault on both systems: Unread portion of the kernel message buffer: kern.maxfiles limit exceeded by uid 1001, please see tuning(7). Fatal double fault rip = 0x80615f54 rsp = 0xff8

Re: Simple kernel attack using socketpair.

В Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:26:39 +0200 Ivan Klymenko пишет: > Hello! > Rumor has it that this vulnerability applies to FreeBSD too, with the > replacement SOCK_SEQPACKET on SOCK_DGRAM... and add: #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include > > http://lkml.org/lkm

Simple kernel attack using socketpair.

Hello! Rumor has it that this vulnerability applies to FreeBSD too, with the replacement SOCK_SEQPACKET on SOCK_DGRAM... http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/25/8 What do you think about this? Thank you! ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://list