Andreas Ferber wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 10:46:43PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
>
> > For a read only case, the only important
> > thing is not to die, one occurrence of bad data is tolerable.
>
> Strong NACK. The pages where the bad data comes from may in some cases
> already be reclaim
On 04 May 2001 15:11:37 +0200,
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>|> Wrap the reference to the parent task structure with exception table
>|> recovery code, like copy_from_user().
>
>Exception tables only protect accesses to user virtual memory. K
Linus, could you consider the patch below? As it is, access to
/proc//status of dead process with dead parent is possible and
leads to access to freed memory. Besides, cd /proc/ means
that even after is gone, readdir() _and_ lookup on /proc/ work.
Patch makes sure that ->p_pptr is NULL on
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Todd Inglett wrote:
> Ok, I've got this isolated. Here's the sequence of events:
>
> 1. Some process T (probably "top") opens /proc/N/stat.
> 2. While holding tasklist_lock the proc code does a get_task_struct()
> to add a ref count to the page.
> 3. Process N exits.
>
Hi,
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 10:46:43PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> For a read only case, the only important
> thing is not to die, one occurrence of bad data is tolerable.
Strong NACK. The pages where the bad data comes from may in some cases
already be reclaimed for other data, probably someth
Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
> Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> |> On Fri, 04 May 2001 07:34:20 -0500,
> |> Todd Inglett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |> >But this is where hell breaks loose. Every process has a valid parent
> |> >-- unless it is dead and nobody cares. Process N has alrea
Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> On Fri, 04 May 2001 07:34:20 -0500,
|> Todd Inglett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> >But this is where hell breaks loose. Every process has a valid parent
|> >-- unless it is dead and nobody cares. Process N has already exited and
|> >released from the
On Fri, 04 May 2001 07:34:20 -0500,
Todd Inglett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But this is where hell breaks loose. Every process has a valid parent
>-- unless it is dead and nobody cares. Process N has already exited and
>released from the tasklist while its parent was still alive. There was
>n
Ok, I've got this isolated. Here's the sequence of events:
1. Some process T (probably "top") opens /proc/N/stat.
2. While holding tasklist_lock the proc code does a get_task_struct()
to add a ref count to the page.
3. Process N exits.
4. The parent of process N exits.
5. Process T reads fr
Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 May 2001, Todd Inglett wrote:
>
> > Perhaps this is old news...but...
> >
> > I can easily create a race when reading /proc//stat
> > (fs/proc/{base.c,array.c}) where a rapidly reading application, such as
> > "top", starts reading stats for a thread which goe
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Todd Inglett wrote:
> Perhaps this is old news...but...
>
> I can easily create a race when reading /proc//stat
> (fs/proc/{base.c,array.c}) where a rapidly reading application, such as
> "top", starts reading stats for a thread which goes away during the
> read. This is e
Perhaps this is old news...but...
I can easily create a race when reading /proc//stat
(fs/proc/{base.c,array.c}) where a rapidly reading application, such as
"top", starts reading stats for a thread which goes away during the
read. This is easily reproduced with a program that rapidly forks and
12 matches
Mail list logo
