In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wri
te:
Hello,
test13-acXX and final-acXX have unresolved symbols, namely
ipt_register_target and ipt_unregister_target in the module
ip6t_MARK.o
Yes, IPv6 netfilter is broken. MARK and mangle should be removed, or
the following patch (by Harald Welte)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:38:53 -0800
From: David Rees [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The link to http://www.samba.org/netfilter/iptables-1.1.1.tar.bz2 is
invalid in 2.4.0, this patch simply removes the link.
Thanks, I've applied this.
My bad.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Hi Rusty,
Some more unresolved symbols for you from the latest prerelease linux kernel:
Does this fix it? If so I'll send to Linus...
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
http://linux.conf.au The Linux conference Australia needed.
diff -urN -I \$.*\$ -X
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
I have attached my .config file. I'm not currently subscribed to this
mailing list so pls email me directly with any questions.
Hi Christian,
Thanks for the bug report. Please try the enclosed patch,
which is pending for 2.4.1.
Cheers,
Rusty.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] y
ou write:
I got this in my logs:
ip_conntrack: maximum limit of 16368 entries exceeded
It's OK, it just means that you have *alot* of connections going
through your box (or maybe you don't route both ways through your box,
which you need to do for
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
It was great to see that 2.4.0 reintroduced ipfwadm support! I had no
need for ipchains and ended up using the wrapper around it that
emulated ipfwadm. However, 2.[02].x used to have "special IP
masquerading modules" such as ip_masq_ftp.o,
These are the only netfilter bug-fixes pending for 2.4.1:
o Rename enum to avoid IPv4/IPv6 clash
o Fix NAT overlap case.
o Fix obscure masquerade-breaks fwmark routing problem.
o Fix mangle align problem (for non-x86).
There are also some feature enhancements
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
I thought that most firewalls were supposed to be insanely paranoid.
Perhaps it would be considered a possible covert data channel, as
farfecthed as that may sound.
If they were `insanely paranoid' they wouldn't just be doing packet
filtering. The
Linus, please apply v2.4.0.
ipt_TOS checksum calculations were completely broken, causing bad csum
packets. Whoever implemented it didn't understand the code it was
copied from.
This fixes the problem (tested in userspace against all TOS changes).
Rusty.
--
Premature optmztion is rt of all
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0005.3/0269.html
A lot of the timer deletion races are hard to fix because of
the deadlock problem.
Hmmm...
For 2.5, changing the timer interface to disallow mod_timer or
add_timer
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0005.3/0269.html
A lot of the timer deletion races are hard to fix because of
the deadlock problem.
Double take: we *did* fix the problems with del_timer_sync(). We
should probably have renamed
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Hi again Rusty
God I'm an idiot. I swear I've fixed this before. search. Yep,
I did. And before that, the same bug in the conntrack code.
This fixed the `core nat compiled in, rest as modules' case, of
course, by actually exporting the symbols.
In message 01013014063301.15042@Petete you write:
I use kernel 2.4.0 + ipchains compatibilty. I use ipchains 1.3.9
This code:
ipchains -A input -p tcp --dport 80 -s 192.168.0.35 -j REDIRECT 81
Oops. Thanks to Anton for testing and touching up this patch.
The 2.0/2.2 setsockopt code
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
you write:
Hey,
I've been trying to get iptables to compile and run with kernel
2.4.0-test7 with absolutly no luck. I have tried patching it with both
the patch that comes with the iptables-1.1.1.tar.bz2 and the patches on
CVS. Could someone tell me which
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:39:11 -0300,
Cesar Eduardo Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My modules.dep has the following lines:
/lib/modules/2.4.0-test8-pre1/kernel/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_ftp.o: /lib
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
* Mark Salisbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000918 07:32]:
the source file linux/fs/hpfs/super.c
from kernel version 2.4-test8 causes cscope to core dump during the database
generation phase.
the problem is the extremely long printk() string starting
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you
write:
I was just wondering if you can use floating point while servicing a
syscall in the kernel?
Please read the documentation, found in
linux/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-hacking.tmpl
See `No floating point or MMX'
Rusty.
--
Hacking time.
-
To
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Hi,
I've just spotted a small problem with 2.4.0-test8 running netfilter:
NAT: 3 dropping untracked packet c065d3a0 1 192.168.0.1 - 192.168.0.9
Yes. The connection tracking code doesn't try to understand broadcast
packets, so when it sees the ping
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Heh.. I needed to figure this out about 6 months ago. Here's the "right
answer"
Before sending the command to the board, call
set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE).
*Ahem*
From Documentation/DocBook/kernel-hacking.tmpl:
Wait Queues
...
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Advantages: A de-allocation immediately followed by a reallocation is
eliminated, less L1 cache pollution during interrupt handling.
Potentially less DMA traffic between card and host.
Disadvantages?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Hello
I try to upgrade one of my servers with 2.4.2 and than 2.4.2ac6
and got strage locks when I start my netfilter firewall
Upgrade from what?
What is happening? What was happening before? What version were you
using before? What is your precise
In message 01a001c0a1cc$22bd5e50$5f01a8c0@worm you write:
Hi,
I am the author of the WRR (http://wipl-wrr.dkik.dk/wrr) qdisc, an extension
to the 2.2 kernels which is supposed to run on a router/bridge/firewall and do
Weighted Round Robin scheduling with a class for each local machine.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Kernel preemption is not allowed while spinlocks are held, which means
that this patch alone cannot guarantee low preemption latencies. But
as long held locks (in particular the BKL) are replaced by finer-grained
locks, this patch will enable lower
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Hi,
I wrote an extension to gcc that does global analysis to determine
which pointers in 2.4.1 are ever treated as user space pointers (i.e,
passed to copy_*_user, verify_area, etc) and then makes sure they are
always treated that way.
Hi Dawson,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:25:01 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
Quick removal of unnecessary initialization to 0.
Quite the contrary. The patch seems correct and useful to me. What do you
think is wrong with it? (Linus accepted megabytes worth of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Recently I muttered a bit about the fact that
with 2.4.0test11 masquerading, the first packet
that was to be forwarded crashes the kernel. Always.
Yes, I was on the plane when I read your report, but I can't reproduce
this. I use masquerading every day
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
I have 2.4.0 test 10 and test 11 installed on a multiprocessor (Intel)
machine. I have tried both test versions of the kernel. I configured
the kernel for single
and multi processor. When I boot single processor, iptables will run
fine. When I
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
yes, but is it a dual machine or is it an N-way SMP with N 2? the
other guy with iptables/SMP problems also has a quad box. could this
perhaps be a problem only when you have more than two processors?
Yes, hacked my machine to think it had 4 cpus,
In message 0012051408110.1526-10@localhost you write:
Hi Linus,
This tiny patch extends ipchains logging. This way one can distinguish
(plain) connection attempts and (Xmas, Fin,...) scans. E.g.
kernel: Packet log: input - lo PROTO=6 127.0.0.1:40326 127.0.0.1:80
L=40 S=0x00 I=5808
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
since test11, the NFS code uses the set_bit and related routines
to manipulate the wb_flags member of the nfs_page struct (nfs_page.h).
Unfortunately, wb_flags has still data type 'int'.
NFS is wrong. Rusty did a complete audit of the code and I've
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:35:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Mohammad A. Haque" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll be trying in a few hours.
Meanwhile for people wanting the crashes to be fixed, please
apply this patch.
This was _always_ broken, and really
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Alan Cox wrote:
Are there blocking lock primitives already defined somewhere in the
kernel?
down and up are normally appropriate for this
Ungh. Forest. Trees. *sigh* Sorry for the dumb question.
Thanks for the reply Alan. :)
Ok,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Hi:
include/linux/netfilter_ipv4.h and include/linux/netfilter_ipv6.h
both define enum nf_ip_hook_priorities. This trips the compiler
if both are included. Should one change to nf_ipv6_hook_priorities?
Yes. Only noone has ever included both yet.
Alan has this, obviously hasn't made it to you.
This is the only part of the `set_bit takes a long' audit results I
personally care about.
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
Hacking time.
diff -urN -I \$.*\$ -X /tmp/kerndiff.oiH8zd --minimal
linux-2.4.0-test11-5/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ip_conntrack.h
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
You need to enable both CONNTRACK and full NAT in your configuration.
Rusty, why doesn't the Config stuff just enforece this if it
is necessary when enabling FTP support etc.?
Deja Vu: we've been through this before. But someone else
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
It seems that for one reason or another, ip_conntrack totally locks (not
removeable) after about 10 hours of continued use. All i found were
these messages in my dmesg output
What was the contents of /proc/net/ip_conntrack?
Being unremovable can
In message 3A585D9F.21907.1452FA04@localhost you write:
I've noticed that my Linux boxes take quite a hit in terms of
packets per second rate when I define ipchains rules with
2.2.X kernels. Does the netfilter replacement found in 2.4
kernels improve this performance?
Not really. What are
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Pluses:
- clean up messy whitespace
- cut precious picoseconds off compile time
- cut kernel tree by 200k (+/- alot)
I've done this before, but never posted it, lest they think I'm
insane. I vote this for 2.5.1.
You, sir, have balls,
Rusty.
--
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you
write:
I've been thinking of doing a cramfs2, and the only thing I'd change is
(a) slightly bigger blocksize (maybe 8k or 16k) and (b) re-order the
meta-data and the real data so that I could easily compress the metadata
too. cramfs doesn't have any
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:45:13 +0200,
Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be possible to keep 2.7.2.3? You still need 2.7.2.3 to
reliably compile 2.0.X (and maybe even 2.2.all-but-latest?).
You can have multiple versions of gcc installed,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:47:15 -0800 (PST),
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I think I have an even simpler solution, which is to change the
newstyle rule to something very simple:
# Translate to Rules.make lists.
O_OBJS
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Paul Gortmaker wrote:
- extern void ether_setup(struct net_device *dev);
+ extern void __ether_setup(struct net_device *dev);
+ static inline void ether_setup(struct net_device *dev){
+ dev-owner = THIS_MODULE;
+ __ether_setup(dev);
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 10:30:39 -0300,
Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note! This _has_ to be in the / filesystem so it works before mounting the
rest of the stuff (if ever). This would rule out /var, and leave just
/lib/modules/version. Makes
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you
write:
hi!
i have the following very nasty problem.
everytime i execute ipchains -F [rule] my box freezes for 25 minutes!
i run slackware on 2.2.17.
You mean `ipchains -F [chain]'? It's possible that your rules could
be ordered so that this command breaks
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
12. Probably Post 2.4
* module remove race bugs (ipchains modules -- Rusty; won't fix for
2.4)
Is this an ipchains bug, or a more general module subsystem bug?
There's a fundamental problem with any module which reduces counts in
Portable code must only use set_bit() on a long, otherwise Sparc64 and
mips64 break (and probably PPC64 in future).
Personally, I'd be much happier if set_bit(N,addr) were defined to
operate on the byte `(char *)addr + N/8': then we could use it on
`char', etc, as well (ie. set_le_bit renamed to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
On 14 Nov 2000 11:42:42 -0800,
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, though, I don't see any reason modprobe shouldn't accept
funky filenames. There is a standard way to do that, which is to have
an argument consisting of the string
In message 20001115154603.D4089@psuedomode you write:
I was DDoS'd today while away and came home to find the firewall unable to
do anything network related (although my connection to irc was still
working oddly). a quick dmesg showed the problem.
ip_conntrack: maximum limit of 2048 entries
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write
:
I think I got something, icmp_error_track() increases the use count
(calling ip_conntrack_find_get()) when it returns with no error (not NULL).
The reference count is now held by the skb.
Hope that helps,
Rusty.
--
Hacking time.
-
To unsubscribe from
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
return (waitall ? len : min(sk-rcvlowat, len)) ? : 1;
To be strictly correct the second expression (between '?' and ':' )
should not be omitted (all you guys already know that ofcourse).
It's a GCC extension. From
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
I'm sure you've run across this one:
http://netfilter.samba.org/security-fix/
I'd like to know how official this patch is, ie how
well checked out?
Hi Dale,
The preferred patch is available, and has been tested (several
new testsuite
In message 3AE6208C.8379.146C84FE@localhost you write:
Greetings All,
After upgrading from kernel 2.0.38 w/ slackware-3.4 to
kernel 2.2.16 w/ slackware-7.1 I have developed the following
routing problems.
Hardware -
eth0 - 10meg on net 192.168.0.0 i/f 192.168.0.1 subnet
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 04:24:46PM +1000, James Morris wrote:
Please try the patch below.
So i did and it seems to work just fine (= no more oops') under 2.4.3/2.4.2-a
James, I only glanced at the patch, but IIRC it just did
route_me_harder() on
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
net/network.o: In function `init_or_cleanup':
net/network.o(.text+0x4a530): relocation truncated to fit: R_ARM_PC24 ip_nat_
cleanup
My bad: Russell, you're absolutely right.
Obvious fix below.
Thanks!
Rusty.
diff -urN -I \$.*\$ -X /tmp/kerndiff.guovnD
as a memory barrier
+ (ie. as per the functionmb()/function macro, but if in
+ doubt, be explicit.
+ !-- Rusty Russell 2 May 2001, 2.4.4 --
+ Also,
spinlock operations act as partial barriers: operations after
gaining a spinlock will never be moved to precede
In message 01050120580701.01713@golmepha you write:
Hello,
the patch at the bottom does the bulk job of strtok replacement. It's a
very boring patch, containing easy cases, only. It became a bit big, too,
but I trust you can digest it nevertheless. It's made against kernel
version 2.4.4.
We can end up with the user getting more fds tban they asked for...
Unlikely, but possible,
Rusty.
--- linux-2.4.4-official/fs/select.cThu Feb 22 14:25:36 2001
+++ working-2.4.4-rcu/fs/select.c Fri May 4 14:06:39 2001
@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@
fd_set_bits fds;
char *bits;
In message 01050413055100.00907@golmepha you write:
Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2001 02:57 schrieb Rusty Russell:
There are two cases where the substitution is problematic:
Yes, but...
The cases which my patch modifies are of a different kind:
The very first hunk of your patch is wrong. I
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Jonathan Morton writes:
- page_count(page) == (1 + !!page-buffers));
Two inversions in a row?
It is the most straightforward way to make a '1' or '0'
integer from the NULL state of a pointer.
Overall, I'd have to say that
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Good point. Spinlocks (with the exception of read-read locks, of
course) and semaphores will deadlock on recursive use, while the BKL
has this process usage counter recursion protection.
Obtaining a read lock twice can
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
In article m15BG8K-001UIwC@mozart you wrote:
# Up...
echo 1 /proc/sys/cpu/1
Wouldn't /proc/sys/cpu/num/enable be better? This way other per-cpu
sysctls could be added more easily...
Yep. But rewrite the sysctl crap first to make
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wri
te:
Hi all!
I think it's possible to hang the kernel useing isic 0.05
(www.packetfactory.net/Projects/ISIC/), when there's a unclean match in
iptables rules.
Thanks for the bug report. I've just done an audit of the unclean
code: patch against 2.4.5
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wri
te:
In practice it's a BS. There is a lot of ways minor modifications of code
could add a preemption point, so if you rely on the lack of such - expect
major PITA.
Yes, in theory SMP adds some extra fun. Practically, almost every SMP
race found so far
Hi all,
http://sourceforge.net/projects/lhcs/
Version 0.5 (should actually compile) of the HotPlug CPU Patch
is out. This adds /sbin/hotplug support (thanks Greg), which is
almost useful.
Of course, /sbin/hotplug falls far short of allowing you to
stop CPUs from going
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Or even better, if you are going to patch, do a 'cp -rl', and your new
ITYM cp -al, and the main benifit (for me) is that diff -urN takes ~10
seconds (cold cache), rather than minutes.
Rusty.
--
Premature optmztion is rt of all evl. --DK
-
To unsubscribe
same
task.
Since it's 60k long, mime attached bzip2.
Go hack!
Rusty Russell Anton Blanchard
--
hotswap CPU patch
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write
:
Hello,
Which archs still need to implement it? I briefly looked over the patch an
d noticed that it had i386, ppc, mips64, and s390 already there.
PPC is there (kinda hackish, but proof of concept). For the rest, I
don't consider:
return
Hi all,
For those with CPU cycles to spare, you can now produce your
own graphs of the 2.4.0 Linux Kernel sources. Marvel at the living
horror of drivers/telephony/ixj.c! View arch/ia64 in all its gory!
Play `find the kernel bug' at parties with friends!
In message l0310280ab6a59b6a53d3@[172.30.8.86] you write:
Using ipfwadm on a 2.4.1 kernel, some ip accouting rules for outgoing
packets have theirs packet and byte counter stuck to 0 value. There is no
such problem with incoming packets.
Hi Eric!
You're exactly right: it was a typo. Thanks.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
This is not quite right:
@@ -1643,7 +1643,7 @@
printk(KERN_NOTICE "apm: disabled on user
request.\n");
return -ENODEV;
}
- if ((smp_num_cpus 1) !power_off) {
+ if ((num_online_cpus() 1)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Hi Paul,
I am reviewing your "Unreliable Locking Guide" from linux 2.4 and just
wonder about the
section on "Avoiding Locks: Read and Write". The two lines of code
new-next = i- next;
i-next = new;
Hi John,
Yes, there is of course a
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.com you write:
We unlink the module
We free the memory
At the same time another cpu may be walking the exception table that we fre
e.
True.
Rusty had a patch that locked the module list properly IIRC.
This is a while back, but I thought the solution
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
This is a while back, but I thought the solution Philipp and I came up
with was to simply used a rw semaphore for this, which was taken (read
only) on page fault if we have to scan the exception table.
We can take page faults in interrupt handlers
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Nigel Gamble wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Keith Owens wrote:
I misread the code, but the idea is still correct. Add a preemption
depth counter to each cpu, when you schedule and the depth is zero then
you know that the cpu is no longer
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
skb_queue_len : 56 : 2:
skb_queue_len not being checked? Look at these two places: either
your analysis has a bug, or there's some wierd code...
skb_push and skb_pull return the new skb data region, but
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
If I understood Andrew's mail correctly, rsync freezes when
large amount of errors happen. Particularly, here ssh always freezes
Known hard-to-fix bug in rsync; too many errors in the pipe, and it
locks up.
Rusty.
--
Premature optmztion is rt of all
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Keith Owens writes:
Or have I missed something?
Nope, it is a fundamental problem with such kernel pre-emption
schemes. As a result, it would also break our big-reader locks
(see include/linux/brlock.h).
Good point: holding a brlock has to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
is there a way to dynamically change the limit : kernel: ip_conntrack:
maximum limit of 16384 entries exceeded ?
echo 32768 /proc/net/ipv4/ip_conntrack_max
Don't increase it too much, or your efficiency will go out the window
(the hash table size
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Hi!
I'm having some problems with ip-connection tracking and multicast packets:
the conntrack stuff doesn't seem to be able to handle multicast packets,
flooding my logs with messages like these:
Feb 28 15:53:00 procyon kernel: NAT: 0 dropping
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Here is an attempt at a possible version of synchronize_kernel() that
should work on a preemptible kernel. I haven't tested it yet.
It's close, but...
Those who suggest that we don't do preemtion on SMP make this much
easier (synchronize_kernel() is a
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
[ cut 50 lines ]
If I were to perhaps send linuxdoc.org a check or
something, might a day come to pass when learning to
do seemingly obvious things under linux does NOT
require fairly good forensic investigation skills? I
ask merely for information.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write
:
Setting a running task's flags brings races, AFAICT, and checking
p-state is NOT sufficient, consider wait_event(): you need p-has_cpu
here I think.
My thought here was that if p-state is anything other than TASK_RUNNING
or
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
On a higher level, I think the scanning of the run list to set flags and
counters is a bit off.
[snip standard refcnt scheme]
For most things, refcnts are great. I use them in connection
tracking. But when writes can be insanely slow (eg. once per
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
where if you look in the code, the flagged routine generic_NCR53C400A_setup
does indeed not have __init:
void generic_NCR53C400A_setup (char *str, int *ints) {
internal_setup (BOARD_NCR53C400A, str, ints);
}
As long as, of
In message OF37B0793C.6B15F182-ON88256A27.0007C3EF@LocalDomain you write:
Priority inversion is not handled in Linux kernel ATM BTW, there
are already situations where a realtime task can cause a deadlock
with some lower priority system thread (I believe there is at least
one case of this
In message OF42269F5F.CDF56B0F-ON88256A27.0083566F@LocalDomain you write:
Already preempted tasks.
But if you are suppressing preemption in all read-side critical sections,
then wouldn't any already-preempted tasks be guaranteed to -not- be in
a read-side critical section, and therefore be
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 15:53 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
The fundamental rule is that whenever you hand out a pointer to a routine
living in a module, the receiver has to increment the module's refcount.
But the driver core violates this rule all over the place.
Hi Alan,
Your rule is
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 00:44 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 03:38:52PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
3. Change the module code so that rmmod can return _before_ the
module is actually unloaded from memory (but after the module's
exit routine has completed).
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 12:08 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
More specifically, there _is_ no way in general to ensure that a reference
will go away when the module's cleanup routine is called, unless you are
very careful not to pass that reference on to _anybody_. The driver core
certainly can't do
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 11:20 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
Hi Alan,
Your assertion is correct. I haven't studied the driver core, so I
might be off-base here, but you'll note that if the module references
the core kmalloc'ed object rather than
On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 09:16 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
On 4/22/07, William Lee Irwin III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 12:17:31AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
For futex(), the extension is needed for the FUTEX_WAIT operation. We
need a new operation FUTEX_WAIT_FOR or
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 11:33 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
On 04/04/2007 06:38 PM, Rene Herman wrote:
Rusty?
Valid points have been made on both sides. I suggest:
#define MODULE_MAINTAINER(_maintainer) \
MODULE_AUTHOR((Maintained by) _maintainer)
Cheers,
Rusty.
-
To unsubscribe from
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 07:52 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 11:33 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
On 04/04/2007 06:38 PM, Rene Herman wrote:
Rusty?
Valid points have been made on both sides. I suggest:
#define
Jens Axboe pointed out that end_request() does not end the entire
request. Go figure. On the upside, he wrote the replacement for me!
Now we do far less block traffic, and our performance sucks less.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff -r fdc8cbc1fd61 drivers/block/lguest_blk.c
Expand the --tunnet option to take a bridge name as an argument, so that
the tap interface is added to the specified bridge. This makes it
convenient to use bridging for connecting the guest to external networks.
Signed-off-by: James Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell
than as a separate loop.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff -r 9fea34a28460 arch/i386/lguest/core.c
--- a/arch/i386/lguest/core.c Thu Mar 08 16:09:00 2007 +1100
+++ b/arch/i386/lguest/core.c Thu Mar 08 16:21:42 2007 +1100
@@ -24,17 +24,21 @@ static char __initdata
supply a error code (we don't handle
NMI yet, but the test is wrong, so fix it before I get confused).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff -r 6efda2f8ac22 arch/i386/lguest/core.c
--- a/arch/i386/lguest/core.c Thu Mar 08 16:25:07 2007 +1100
+++ b/arch/i386/lguest/core.c Thu Mar
1: It helps if you connect the bridge to a link.
Signed-off-by: James Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2: You can theoretically run lguest with no boot parameters.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff -r 90134cf1fe0a Documentation/lguest/lguest.c
--- a/Documentation/lguest/lguest.c
for one context switch via pipe: 4701 nsec
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff -r 06b3a533da77 arch/i386/lguest/page_tables.c
--- a/arch/i386/lguest/page_tables.cWed Feb 21 12:20:20 2007 +1100
+++ b/arch/i386/lguest/page_tables.cWed Feb 21 18:13:00 2007 +1100
@@ -155,14
. This is optimized in another patch.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff -r 7a963f6eef0a arch/i386/kernel/asm-offsets.c
--- a/arch/i386/kernel/asm-offsets.cThu Mar 08 17:01:08 2007 +1100
+++ b/arch/i386/kernel/asm-offsets.cThu Mar 08 17:21:16 2007 +1100
@@ -122,15 +122,15
1 - 100 of 4453 matches
Mail list logo
