Your questions are interesting and rarely asked.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 11:57 AM Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 05:02:20PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > * (possibly) cifs hitting the same on eviction by memory pressure
> > alone
> > (no locked inodes anywhere in sight). Possibly
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:52 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Dang, I thought this already got merged. But we only discussed it
> extensively and I guess it got delayed by all the discussions about
> possible fixes for the d_lock contention.
Side note: I'm not all _that_ worried about the d_lock conte
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 05:02:20PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> * (possibly) cifs hitting the same on eviction by memory pressure alone
> (no locked inodes anywhere in sight). Possibly == if cifs IPC$ share happens
> to
> show up non-empty (e.g. due to server playing silly buggers).
> * (
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:27 AM Al Viro wrote:
>
> FWIW, vfs.git#fixes (or #next.dcache) ought to deal with that one.
Dang, I thought this already got merged. But we only discussed it
extensively and I guess it got delayed by all the discussions about
possible fixes for the d_lock contention.
Al,
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 05:25:28PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:10:58PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:33:02PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:27:48PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:05:0
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:10:58PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:33:02PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:27:48PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:05:03PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > From: Will Deacon
> > > >
> >
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:33:02PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:27:48PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:05:03PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > From: Will Deacon
> > >
> > > Closing /dev/pts/ptmx removes the corresponding pty under /dev/p
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:27:48PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:05:03PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > From: Will Deacon
> >
> > Closing /dev/pts/ptmx removes the corresponding pty under /dev/pts/
> > without synchronizing against concurrent path walkers. This can lead
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:05:03PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> From: Will Deacon
>
> Closing /dev/pts/ptmx removes the corresponding pty under /dev/pts/
> without synchronizing against concurrent path walkers. This can lead to
> 'dcache_readdir()' tripping over a 'struct dentry' with a NULL
From: Will Deacon
Closing /dev/pts/ptmx removes the corresponding pty under /dev/pts/
without synchronizing against concurrent path walkers. This can lead to
'dcache_readdir()' tripping over a 'struct dentry' with a NULL 'd_inode'
field:
| BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 000
10 matches
Mail list logo