> On 19/10/2019, at 11:32 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Run scripts/get_maintainer.pl on any file and it will tell you where to
> send changes to:
> $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --file init/do_mounts.c
> Al Viro mailto:v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk>>
> (commit_signer:7/9=78%,authored:5/9=56%,ad
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 10:33:00 +1300, Paulo Almeida said:
> 1 - This specific code block has been around for quite some time and many
> additions using the correct printk(KERN_* were made after it was written.
> Does that mean that this code block is an exception and should be left
> as-is for some
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:43:58 -0300, Martin Galvan said:
> goto statements are harmful.
For starters, note that the original paper was written in 1968. Yes, it's over
a half century old now.
Have you actually *read* the paper?
https://homepages.cwi.nl/~storm/teaching/reader/Dijkstra68.pdf
You p
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 10:33:00AM +1300, Paulo Almeida wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was reading the KernelJanitor/Todo webpage and found the printk-related
> task that had to be done.
>
> I eventually came across this piece of code that led me to 2 questions that
> I couldn't answer myself
> https://g
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 07:09:54PM -0300, Martin Galvan wrote:
> Hi Valdis, thanks for the thorough response.
>
> El vie., 18 oct. 2019 a las 18:53, Valdis Klētnieks
> () escribió:
> > Well..here's the thing. Unless you have "panic_on_oops" set, hitting a null
> > pointer will usually *NOT* panic
Hi Valdis, thanks for the thorough response.
El vie., 18 oct. 2019 a las 18:53, Valdis Klētnieks
() escribió:
> Well..here's the thing. Unless you have "panic_on_oops" set, hitting a null
> pointer will usually *NOT* panic the whole system. In fact, that # in the
> panic message is a counter
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:11:54 -0300, Martin Galvan said:
> I don't think I was clear. My intent is that if a pointer bug isn't
> fixed, my module will fail gracefully and go through the catch block
> instead of panicking the whole system.
Well..here's the thing. Unless you have "panic_on_oops" s
On 10/18/19 5:24 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Every time you test whether the PID is the PID of the
> currently running process, it will be true. Think of
> the kernel as a privileged shared library, not as a
> program that userspace happens to communicate with.
https://superuser.com/questions/197168
I believe I just found the answer for point number 2:
THE REST
M: Linus Torvalds
L: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
Q: http://patchwork.kernel.org/project/LKML/list/
T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
S: Buried alive in reporters
F: *
F: */
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019
Hi all,
I was reading the KernelJanitor/Todo webpage and found the printk-related
task that had to be done.
I eventually came across this piece of code that led me to 2 questions that
I couldn't answer myself
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blame/master/init/do_mounts.c#L434-L455
1 - This spec
On 10/18/19 5:24 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Every time you test whether the PID is the PID of the
> currently running process, it will be true. Think of
> the kernel as a privileged shared library, not as a
> program that userspace happens to communicate with.
this last sentence can not be true.
On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 12:43 -0300, Martin Galvan wrote:
> El jue., 17 oct. 2019 a las 19:13, Valdis Klētnieks
> () escribió:
> > For starters, the *correct* in-kernel way to deal with this is:
> > if (!ptr) {
> > printk("You blew it!\n");
> > goto you_blew_it
On 10/18/19 2:53 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On 10/18/19 1:05 PM, Martin Galvan wrote:
>> Windows does
>> with its __try/__except machinery which uses stack unwinding
>> information.
>
> Nothing would suprise we with MS.
>
> Interesting. Show me a code example for this within the MS WIndows kernel
On 10/18/19 1:05 PM, Martin Galvan wrote:
> Windows does
> with its __try/__except machinery which uses stack unwinding
> information.
Nothing would suprise we with MS.
Interesting. Show me a code example for this within the MS WIndows kernel
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through ou
On 10/18/19 1:05 PM, Martin Galvan wrote:
> El vie., 18 oct. 2019 a las 14:02, Ruben Safir ()
> escribió:
>> I don't think you really understand what is going on here. On the
>> kernel level you would never wrap up a process in another process in
>> order to catch a mistake, and then do error co
On 10/18/19 11:43 AM, Martin Galvan wrote:
> goto statements are harmful
not in the kernel.
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We a
El vie., 18 oct. 2019 a las 14:02, Ruben Safir () escribió:
> I don't think you really understand what is going on here. On the
> kernel level you would never wrap up a process in another process in
> order to catch a mistake, and then do error correction. That method of
> programming is not appr
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 01:11:54PM -0300, Martin Galvan wrote:
> El vie., 18 oct. 2019 a las 13:05, Bernd Petrovitsch
> () escribió:
> > You actually want speed in the kernel and not necessarily extra effort
> > for "try" and "catch" which is - sooner or later - never really used.
> > And the "safe
On 18/10/2019 18:11, Martin Galvan wrote:
> El vie., 18 oct. 2019 a las 13:05, Bernd Petrovitsch
> () escribió:
>> You actually want speed in the kernel and not necessarily extra effort
>> for "try" and "catch" which is - sooner or later - never really used.
Just brainstorming (as I'm not a guru o
El vie., 18 oct. 2019 a las 13:05, Bernd Petrovitsch
() escribió:
> You actually want speed in the kernel and not necessarily extra effort
> for "try" and "catch" which is - sooner or later - never really used.
> And the "safety net" reduces the motivation to actually fix pointer bugs
I don't
On 18/10/2019 17:43, Martin Galvan wrote:> El jue., 17 oct. 2019 a las 19:13,
Valdis Klētnieks
> () escribió:
>>
>> For starters, the *correct* in-kernel way to deal with this is:
>> if (!ptr) {
>> printk("You blew it!\n");
>> goto you_blew_it;
>> }
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:44 PM Martin Galvan wrote:
> El jue., 17 oct. 2019 a las 19:13, Valdis Klētnieks
> () escribió:
> >
> > For starters, the *correct* in-kernel way to deal with this is:
> > if (!ptr) {
> > printk("You blew it!\n");
> > goto you_blew
Edsger Dijkstra will haunt is forever, it seems. Gotos are just a tool,
and this is one of the few places they're the best tool for the job. And
generally in-kernel the acceptable method is to not forget a null check, as
Valdis mentioned. It's cool to forget a null check on your own machine (who
a
El jue., 17 oct. 2019 a las 19:13, Valdis Klētnieks
() escribió:
>
> For starters, the *correct* in-kernel way to deal with this is:
> if (!ptr) {
> printk("You blew it!\n");
> goto you_blew_it;
> }
goto statements are harmful. In any case, what I me
24 matches
Mail list logo
