On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 14:08 +, David Howells wrote:
> Signed-Off-By: David Howells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Excellent. Thanks David!
Rusty.
--
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
The attached patch fixes a race between kallsyms and insmod/rmmod.
The problem is this:
(1) The various kallsyms functions poke around in the module list without any
locking so that they can be called from the oops handler.
(2) Although insmod and rmmod use locks to exclude each other, t
David Howells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The more I looked at this, the more I warmed to it. I've known for a
> > while that people are using kallsyms not for OOPS (eg. /proc/$$/wchan),
> > so we should provide a "grabs locks" version, but thi
Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The more I looked at this, the more I warmed to it. I've known for a
> while that people are using kallsyms not for OOPS (eg. /proc/$$/wchan),
> so we should provide a "grabs locks" version, but this solution gets
> around that nicely, while makin
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 16:27 +, David Howells wrote:
> The attached patch fixes a race between kallsyms and insmod/rmmod.
Hi David,
The more I looked at this, the more I warmed to it. I've known for a
while that people are using kallsyms not for OOPS (eg. /proc/$$/wchan),
so we should
The attached patch fixes a race between kallsyms and insmod/rmmod.
The problem is this:
(1) The various kallsyms functions poke around in the module list without any
locking so that they can be called from the oops handler.
(2) Although insmod and rmmod use locks to exclude each other, t
6 matches
Mail list logo
