to figure out why too, as release_task would be called
with current referring to the parent process, or whoever is reaping the
process with the last reference to the namespace. Right?
Regardless, I have to say I prefer this patch.
--
Daniel Hokka Zakrisson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the li
, as release_task would be called
with current referring to the parent process, or whoever is reaping the
process with the last reference to the namespace. Right?
Regardless, I have to say I prefer this patch.
--
Daniel Hokka Zakrisson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Daniel Hokka Zakrisson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The test-case at the bottom causes the following recursive Oopsing on
>> 2.6.20-rc5:
>
> A few more people added to the CC who might have a clue.
>
>>
>>
#include
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
if (unshare(CLONE_NEWNS) == -1) {
perror("unshare");
exit(1);
}
execv("/bin/mount", argv+1);
perror("execv(mount)");
return 1;
}
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
if (unshare(CLONE_NEWNS) == -1) {
perror(unshare);
exit(1);
}
execv(/bin/mount, argv+1);
perror(execv(mount));
return 1;
}
--
Daniel Hokka Zakrisson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Daniel Hokka Zakrisson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The test-case at the bottom causes the following recursive Oopsing on
2.6.20-rc5:
A few more people added to the CC who might have a clue.
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
6 matches
Mail list logo
