On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:08:49PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> Solution is fairly simple:
Just to clarify: said solution is already in the tree...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kerne
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:08:49 +
Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:35:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Right now there is a hole in the module ref counting system because
> > there is no proper ref counting for sysctl tables used by modules.
> > This means t
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:35:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Right now there is a hole in the module ref counting system because
> there is no proper ref counting for sysctl tables used by modules.
> This means that if an application is holding /proc/sys/foo open and
> module that created i
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:42:02 +0100
Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 10:35 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >
> > This patch fixes that by maintaining source compatibility via macro.
> > I am sure someone already thought of this, it just doesn't appear to
> > ha
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 10:35 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> This patch fixes that by maintaining source compatibility via macro.
> I am sure someone already thought of this, it just doesn't appear to
> have made it in yet.
isn't it more consistent to give the sysctl table itself an .owner
fie
Right now there is a hole in the module ref counting system because
there is no proper ref counting for sysctl tables used by modules.
This means that if an application is holding /proc/sys/foo open and
module that created it is unloaded, then the application touches the
file the kernel will oops.
