Jan Kara wrote:
> > void delayed_work_timer_fn(struct timer_list *t)
> > {
> > struct delayed_work *dwork = from_timer(dwork, t, timer);
> >
> > /* should have been called from irqsafe timer with irq already off */
> > __queue_work(dwork->cpu, dwork->wq, >work);
> > }
> >
> > Then,
On Sat 19-05-18 23:27:09, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Make wb_workfn() use wakeup_wb() for requeueing the work which takes all
> > > the necessary precautions against racing with bdi unregistration.
> >
> > Yes, this patch will solve NULL pointer
Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> > Make wb_workfn() use wakeup_wb() for requeueing the work which takes all
> > the necessary precautions against racing with bdi unregistration.
>
> Yes, this patch will solve NULL pointer dereference bug. But is it OK to leave
> list_empty(>work_list) ==
On 5/9/18 4:31 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 03-05-18 18:26:26, Jan Kara wrote:
>> Syzbot has reported that it can hit a NULL pointer dereference in
>> wb_workfn() due to wb->bdi->dev being NULL. This indicates that
>> wb_workfn() was called for an already unregistered bdi which should not
>>
On Thu 03-05-18 18:26:26, Jan Kara wrote:
> Syzbot has reported that it can hit a NULL pointer dereference in
> wb_workfn() due to wb->bdi->dev being NULL. This indicates that
> wb_workfn() was called for an already unregistered bdi which should not
> happen as wb_shutdown() called from
On Fri 04-05-18 07:55:58, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 06:26:26PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Syzbot has reported that it can hit a NULL pointer dereference in
> > wb_workfn() due to wb->bdi->dev being NULL. This indicates that
> > wb_workfn() was called for an already unregistered
On Fri 04-05-18 07:35:34, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> > Make wb_workfn() use wakeup_wb() for requeueing the work which takes all
> > the necessary precautions against racing with bdi unregistration.
>
> Yes, this patch will solve NULL pointer dereference bug. But is it OK to
> leave
Jan Kara wrote:
> Make wb_workfn() use wakeup_wb() for requeueing the work which takes all
> the necessary precautions against racing with bdi unregistration.
Yes, this patch will solve NULL pointer dereference bug. But is it OK to leave
list_empty(>work_list) == false situation? Who takes over
On 5/3/18 3:55 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 06:26:26PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>> Syzbot has reported that it can hit a NULL pointer dereference in
>> wb_workfn() due to wb->bdi->dev being NULL. This indicates that
>> wb_workfn() was called for an already unregistered bdi which
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 06:26:26PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Syzbot has reported that it can hit a NULL pointer dereference in
> wb_workfn() due to wb->bdi->dev being NULL. This indicates that
> wb_workfn() was called for an already unregistered bdi which should not
> happen as wb_shutdown() called
Syzbot has reported that it can hit a NULL pointer dereference in
wb_workfn() due to wb->bdi->dev being NULL. This indicates that
wb_workfn() was called for an already unregistered bdi which should not
happen as wb_shutdown() called from bdi_unregister() should make sure
all pending writeback
11 matches
Mail list logo
