On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/07, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> >
>> >> @@ -98,12 +93,13 @@ static int call_modprobe(char *module_name, int wait)
>> >> argv[3] = module_name; /* check free_modprobe_argv()
On 03/07, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> >> @@ -98,12 +93,13 @@ static int call_modprobe(char *module_name, int wait)
> >> argv[3] = module_name; /* check free_modprobe_argv() */
> >> argv[4] = NULL;
> >>
> >> - return call_us
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
>
> On 03/06, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> >
>> > So, I hope you will send v2. I'd suggest to split the fixes. 1/3
>> > should create/export the new helpers, and 2-3 fix shoul
Hi Lucas,
On 03/06, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > So, I hope you will send v2. I'd suggest to split the fixes. 1/3
> > should create/export the new helpers, and 2-3 fix should call_modprobe()
> > and call_usermodehelper_keys(). But this i
Hi Oleg,
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/25, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>
>> Yep. The current interface is confusing. I agree that a separate
>> setup() + exec() would make more sense.
>
> Great,
>
>> > @@ -98,8 +98,14 @@ static int call_modprobe(char *module_na
>> >
On 02/25, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>
> Yep. The current interface is confusing. I agree that a separate
> setup() + exec() would make more sense.
Great,
> > @@ -98,8 +98,14 @@ static int call_modprobe(char *module_na
> > argv[3] = module_name; /* check free_modprobe_argv() */
> > a
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/25, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>
>> Callers of call_usermodehelper_fns() should check the return value and
>> free themselves the data passed if the return is -ENOMEM. This is
>> because the subprocess_info is allocated in this function, a
On 02/25, David Howells wrote:
>
> Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>
> > This patch fixes both call_usermodehelper_fns() to never call the
> > cleanup function in case retval == -ENOMEM and also the callers to
> > actually check the return value of this function.
>
> I suspect it's probably better to alway
On 02/25, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>
> Callers of call_usermodehelper_fns() should check the return value and
> free themselves the data passed if the return is -ENOMEM. This is
> because the subprocess_info is allocated in this function, and if the
> allocation fail, the cleanup function cannot be c
Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> Callers of call_usermodehelper_fns() should check the return value and
> free themselves the data passed if the return is -ENOMEM. This is
> because the subprocess_info is allocated in this function, and if the
> allocation fail, the cleanup function cannot be called.
>
Callers of call_usermodehelper_fns() should check the return value and
free themselves the data passed if the return is -ENOMEM. This is
because the subprocess_info is allocated in this function, and if the
allocation fail, the cleanup function cannot be called.
However call_usermodehelper_exec()
11 matches
Mail list logo