On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> And this makes me think again that we need to restart this discusion with
> more CC's.
I'm a fan of that; I've not been able to follow this thread as it
seems to have gone far from the original deadlock problem. :) I've
seen
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> And this makes me think again that we need to restart this discusion with
> more CC's.
I'm a fan of that; I've not been able to follow this thread as it
seems to have gone far from the original deadlock problem. :) I've
seen issues with
> update_sighand(tsk);
> update_signal(tsk);
> do_close_on_exec();
> update_tsk_fields(tsk);
> mutex_unlock();
>
> The only way I can see of reducing the scope of cred_guard_mutex is
> performing work in such a way that ptrace and t
k);
> update_signal(tsk);
> do_close_on_exec();
> update_tsk_fields(tsk);
> mutex_unlock();
>
> The only way I can see of reducing the scope of cred_guard_mutex is
> performing work in such a way that ptrace and the other threads can't
> inter
On 04/05, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> writes:
>
> - You made comments about cred_guard_mutex and it's scope that when I
> reviewed the code were false.
Too late for me. I'll try to read other emails from you and reply tomorrow.
Oleg.
On 04/05, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov writes:
>
> - You made comments about cred_guard_mutex and it's scope that when I
> reviewed the code were false.
Too late for me. I'll try to read other emails from you and reply tomorrow.
Oleg.
est
> a better solution, or at least review the patches. OK?
I will be happy to look but my primary objectionions to your patch were:
- You implemented a hack for backporting rather than fixing things
cleanly the first time.
- You made comments about cred_guard_mutex and it's scope
n, or at least review the patches. OK?
I will be happy to look but my primary objectionions to your patch were:
- You implemented a hack for backporting rather than fixing things
cleanly the first time.
- You made comments about cred_guard_mutex and it's scope that when I
reviewed the cod
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/03, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> You have asked why I have problems with your patch and so I am going to
>> try to explain. Partly I want to see a clean set of patches that we
>> can merge into Linus's tree before we
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/03, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> You have asked why I have problems with your patch and so I am going to
>> try to explain. Partly I want to see a clean set of patches that we
>> can merge into Linus's tree before we make any
On 04/03, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> You have asked why I have problems with your patch and so I am going to
> try to explain. Partly I want to see a clean set of patches that we
> can merge into Linus's tree before we make any compromises. Because the
> work preparing a clean patchset may
On 04/03, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> You have asked why I have problems with your patch and so I am going to
> try to explain. Partly I want to see a clean set of patches that we
> can merge into Linus's tree before we make any compromises. Because the
> work preparing a clean patchset may
Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 04/02, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > Anyway, Eric, even if we can and want to do this, why we can't do this on
>> > top of my fix?
>&g
Oleg Nesterov writes:
> On 04/02, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Oleg Nesterov writes:
>>
>> > Anyway, Eric, even if we can and want to do this, why we can't do this on
>> > top of my fix?
>>
>> Because your reduction in scope of cred_gua
14 matches
Mail list logo