Re: race between flush_to_ldisc and pty_cleanup

> that. > Not really possible to have the latest kernel on the same target and may be > reproduce the same race. > Tried to track for changes in the other stable branches, but no change looks > really relevant for this race. > I might be wrong, please help if there is any co

Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86: usercopy: reimplement arch_within_stack_frames with unwinder

Hi Kees, On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:11 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > [resending with the CCs I forgot...] > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:19 AM, wrote: >> From: Sahara >> >> The old arch_within_stack_frames which used the frame

Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86: usercopy: reimplement arch_within_stack_frames with unwinder

Hi Kees, On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:11 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > [resending with the CCs I forgot...] > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:19 AM, wrote: >> From: Sahara >> >> The old arch_within_stack_frames which used the frame pointer is >> now reimplemented to use frame pointer unwinder apis. So the

Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: usercopy: implement arch_within_stack_frames

Hi Kees, On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:55 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:19 AM, wrote: >> From: James Morse >> >> This implements arch_within_stack_frames() for arm64 that should >> validate if a given object is

Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: usercopy: implement arch_within_stack_frames

Hi Kees, On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:55 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:19 AM, wrote: >> From: James Morse >> >> This implements arch_within_stack_frames() for arm64 that should >> validate if a given object is contained by a kernel stack frame. >> >> Signed-off-by: James Morse

Re: [PATCH] pty: cancel pty slave port buf's work in tty_release

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 09:10:48AM +0400, kpark3...@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Sahara > > I need a "Full" name here, I doubt you sign legal documents with just > the single name, right? For

Re: [PATCH] pty: cancel pty slave port buf's work in tty_release

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 09:10:48AM +0400, kpark3...@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Sahara > > I need a "Full" name here, I doubt you sign legal documents with just > the single name, right? For a long time, I have been using this single name as my

Re: [PATCH] earlyprintk: re-enable earlyprintk calling early_param

FYI only if you missed my previous 2 replies which didn't reach the mailing list. Thanks. On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Sahara wrote: > > 2014년 08월 16일 03:34, Rusty Russell 쓴 글: > >> kpark3...@gmail.com writes: >>> >>> From: Sahara >>> >>> Although there are many obs_kernel_param and its

Re: [PATCH] earlyprintk: re-enable earlyprintk calling early_param

FYI only if you missed my previous 2 replies which didn't reach the mailing list. Thanks. On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Sahara keun-o.p...@windriver.com wrote: 2014년 08월 16일 03:34, Rusty Russell 쓴 글: kpark3...@gmail.com writes: From: Sahara keun-o.p...@windriver.com Although there

Re: [PATCH v2] tracepoints: prevents null probe from being added

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:34 PM, wrote: > From: Sahara > > Somehow tracepoint_entry_add_probe function allows a null probe function. > And, this may lead to unexpected result since the number of probe > functions in an entry can be counted by checking whether probe is null > or not in for-loop.

Re: [PATCH v2] tracepoints: prevents null probe from being added

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:34 PM, kpark3...@gmail.com wrote: From: Sahara keun-o.p...@windriver.com Somehow tracepoint_entry_add_probe function allows a null probe function. And, this may lead to unexpected result since the number of probe functions in an entry can be counted by checking

Re: [PATCH] tracepoints: prevents null probe from being added

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Keun-O Park (kpark3...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers >> wrote: >> > * Keun-O Park (kpark3...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8

Re: [PATCH] tracepoints: prevents null probe from being added

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Keun-O Park (kpark3...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> > On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 14:01 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> >> * Steven Rostedt (rost...@good

Re: [PATCH] tracepoints: prevents null probe from being added

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Keun-O Park wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 14:01 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >>> * Steven Rostedt (rost...@goodmis.org) wrote: >>> > On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 12:18 +0

Re: [PATCH] tracepoints: prevents null probe from being added

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 14:01 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> * Steven Rostedt (rost...@goodmis.org) wrote: >> > On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 12:18 +0900, kpark3...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > From: Sahara >> > > >> > > Somehow

Re: [PATCH] tracepoints: prevents null probe from being added

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote: On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 14:01 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: * Steven Rostedt (rost...@goodmis.org) wrote: On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 12:18 +0900, kpark3...@gmail.com wrote: From: Sahara keun-o.p...@windriver.com

Re: [PATCH] tracepoints: prevents null probe from being added

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Keun-O Park kpark3...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote: On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 14:01 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: * Steven Rostedt (rost...@goodmis.org) wrote: On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 12:18 +0900

Re: [PATCH] tracepoints: prevents null probe from being added

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com wrote: * Keun-O Park (kpark3...@gmail.com) wrote: On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote: On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 14:01 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: * Steven Rostedt (rost

Re: [PATCH] tracepoints: prevents null probe from being added

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com wrote: * Keun-O Park (kpark3...@gmail.com) wrote: On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com wrote: * Keun-O Park (kpark3...@gmail.com) wrote: On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8

Re: [for-next][PATCH 9/9] tracing: Update debugfs README file

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi Steve, > > On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:24:21 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" >> >> Update the README file in debugfs/tracing to something more useful. >> What's currently in the file is very old and what it

Re: [for-next][PATCH 9/9] tracing: Update debugfs README file

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote: Hi Steve, On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:24:21 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: From: Steven Rostedt (Red Hat) rost...@goodmis.org Update the README file in debugfs/tracing to something more useful. What's currently in the file is

Re: [PATCH 19/19] [INCOMPLETE] ARM: make return_address available for ARM_UNWIND

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:33:11AM +0900, Keun-O Park wrote: >> Hello guys, >> >> Could you please review the patch of fixing bug first of returning >> wrong address when using frame pointer? >>

Re: [PATCH 19/19] [INCOMPLETE] ARM: make return_address available for ARM_UNWIND

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Dave Martin dave.mar...@linaro.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:33:11AM +0900, Keun-O Park wrote: Hello guys, Could you please review the patch of fixing bug first of returning wrong address when using frame pointer? I am wondering if the first patch

Re: [PATCH 19/19] [INCOMPLETE] ARM: make return_address available for ARM_UNWIND

Hello guys, Could you please review the patch of fixing bug first of returning wrong address when using frame pointer? I am wondering if the first patch is not delivered to the mailing. ~snip~ >From 3a60b536d22a2043d735c890a9aac9e7cb72de8f Mon Sep 17

Re: [PATCH 19/19] [INCOMPLETE] ARM: make return_address available for ARM_UNWIND

Hello guys, Could you please review the patch of fixing bug first of returning wrong address when using frame pointer? I am wondering if the first patch is not delivered to the mailing. ~snip~ From 3a60b536d22a2043d735c890a9aac9e7cb72de8f Mon Sep 17

Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: make return_address available for ARM_UNWIND

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 17:45 +0900, Keun-O Park wrote: > > > With "CFLAGS_REMOVE_unwind.o = -pg" and with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING > > turned on, I confirmed that > > there's no trace output like Steve

Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: make return_address available for ARM_UNWIND

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote: On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 17:45 +0900, Keun-O Park wrote: With CFLAGS_REMOVE_unwind.o = -pg and with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING turned on, I confirmed that there's no trace output like Steve mentioned. However, if I turn

[PATCH] arm: fix returning wrong CALLER_ADDRx

From: sahara This makes return_address return correct value for ftrace feature. unwind_frame does not update frame->lr but frame->pc for backtrace. And, the initialization for data.addr was missing so that wrong value returned when unwind_frame failed. Signed-off-by: sahara ---

[PATCH] arm: fix returning wrong CALLER_ADDRx

From: sahara keun-o.p...@windriver.com This makes return_address return correct value for ftrace feature. unwind_frame does not update frame-lr but frame-pc for backtrace. And, the initialization for data.addr was missing so that wrong value returned when unwind_frame failed. Signed-off-by:

Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: make return_address available for ARM_UNWIND

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 16:23 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:03:58AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> > On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 14:13 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> > > In summary, from what I can

Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: make return_address available for ARM_UNWIND

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote: On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 16:23 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:03:58AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 14:13 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: In summary, from