Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Cedric Le Goater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > your first analysis was correct : exit_task_namespaces() should be moved
>> > above exit_notify(tsk). It will require some extra fixes for nsproxy
>> >
On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Cedric Le Goater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > your first analysis was correct : exit_task_namespaces() should be moved
> > above exit_notify(tsk). It will require some extra fixes for nsproxy
> > though.
>
> I think the only issue is the
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 15:30 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Cedric Le Goater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > your first analysis was correct : exit_task_namespaces() should be moved
> > above exit_notify(tsk). It will require some extra fixes for nsproxy
> > though.
>
> I think the only
Cedric Le Goater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> your first analysis was correct : exit_task_namespaces() should be moved
> above exit_notify(tsk). It will require some extra fixes for nsproxy
> though.
I think the only issue is the child_reaper and currently we only have one of
those. When we
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/17, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 01/17, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
It was the only semi-plausible explanation I could come up with. I added a
printk in do_exit right before exit_task_namespaces, where sighand was
still set,
On 01/17, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 01/17, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
> >> It was the only semi-plausible explanation I could come up with. I added a
> >> printk in do_exit right before exit_task_namespaces, where sighand was
> >> still set, and one right before
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/17, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
Call Trace:
[] _spin_lock_irqsave+0x20/0x90
[] lockd_down+0x125/0x190
[] nfs_free_server+0x6d/0xd0
[] nfs_kill_super+0xc/0x20
[] deactivate_super+0x7d/0xa0
[] release_mounts+0x6e/0x80
[]
On 01/17, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
>
> >> Call Trace:
> >> [] _spin_lock_irqsave+0x20/0x90
> >> [] lockd_down+0x125/0x190
> >> [] nfs_free_server+0x6d/0xd0
> >> [] nfs_kill_super+0xc/0x20
> >> [] deactivate_super+0x7d/0xa0
> >> [] release_mounts+0x6e/0x80
> >> [] __put_mnt_ns+0x66/0x80
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
"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
> 0504
> printing
The test-case at the bottom causes the following recursive Oopsing on
2.6.20-rc5:
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
0504
printing eip:
c02292d4
*pde =
Oops: 0002 [#1]
PREEMPT SMP
Modules linked in:
CPU:0
EIP:0060:[]Not tainted VLI
The test-case at the bottom causes the following recursive Oopsing on
2.6.20-rc5:
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
0504
printing eip:
c02292d4
*pde =
Oops: 0002 [#1]
PREEMPT SMP
Modules linked in:
CPU:0
EIP:0060:[c02292d4]Not
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
0504
printing eip:
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
On 01/17, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
Call Trace:
[c03be6f0] _spin_lock_irqsave+0x20/0x90
[c01f6115] lockd_down+0x125/0x190
[c01d26bd] nfs_free_server+0x6d/0xd0
[c01d8e9c] nfs_kill_super+0xc/0x20
[c0161c5d] deactivate_super+0x7d/0xa0
[c0175e0e] release_mounts+0x6e/0x80
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 01/17, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
Call Trace:
[c03be6f0] _spin_lock_irqsave+0x20/0x90
[c01f6115] lockd_down+0x125/0x190
[c01d26bd] nfs_free_server+0x6d/0xd0
[c01d8e9c] nfs_kill_super+0xc/0x20
[c0161c5d] deactivate_super+0x7d/0xa0
[c0175e0e]
On 01/17, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 01/17, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
It was the only semi-plausible explanation I could come up with. I added a
printk in do_exit right before exit_task_namespaces, where sighand was
still set, and one right before the
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 01/17, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 01/17, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
It was the only semi-plausible explanation I could come up with. I added a
printk in do_exit right before exit_task_namespaces, where sighand was
still set, and one right
Cedric Le Goater [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
your first analysis was correct : exit_task_namespaces() should be moved
above exit_notify(tsk). It will require some extra fixes for nsproxy
though.
I think the only issue is the child_reaper and currently we only have one of
those. When we
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 15:30 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Cedric Le Goater [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
your first analysis was correct : exit_task_namespaces() should be moved
above exit_notify(tsk). It will require some extra fixes for nsproxy
though.
I think the only issue is the
On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Cedric Le Goater [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
your first analysis was correct : exit_task_namespaces() should be moved
above exit_notify(tsk). It will require some extra fixes for nsproxy
though.
I think the only issue is the child_reaper and
Oleg Nesterov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Cedric Le Goater [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
your first analysis was correct : exit_task_namespaces() should be moved
above exit_notify(tsk). It will require some extra fixes for nsproxy
though.
I think the
22 matches
Mail list logo
