On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 02:48:19PM +0300, Haggai Eran wrote:
> On 26/08/2014 00:07, Shawn Bohrer wrote:
> The following patch fixes the issue by storing the mm_struct of the
> >> >
> >> > You are doing more than just storing the mm_struct - you are taking
> >> > a reference to the process' mm
On 26/08/2014 00:07, Shawn Bohrer wrote:
The following patch fixes the issue by storing the mm_struct of the
>> >
>> > You are doing more than just storing the mm_struct - you are taking
>> > a reference to the process' mm. This can lead to a massive resource
>> > leakage. The reason is bit
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:20:34AM +, Shachar Raindel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm afraid this patch, in its current form, will not work.
> See below for additional comments.
Thanks for the input Shachar. I've tried to answer your questions
below.
> > > In debugging an application that receives -E
3 AM
> To: Roland Dreier
> Cc: Christoph Lameter; Sean Hefty; Hal Rosenstock; linux-
> r...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> t...@rgmadvisors.com; Shawn Bohrer
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ib_umem_release should decrement mm->pinned_vm
> from ib_umem_get
>
> On
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:27:35AM -0500, Shawn Bohrer wrote:
> From: Shawn Bohrer
>
> In debugging an application that receives -ENOMEM from ib_reg_mr() I
> found that ib_umem_get() can fail because the pinned_vm count has
> wrapped causing it to always be larger than the lock limit even with
>
5 matches
Mail list logo
