Synopsis: [inet] [patch] Reentrant problem with inet_ntoa in the kernel
State-Changed-From-To: open->open
State-Changed-By: linimon
State-Changed-When: Wed Jul 3 00:50:32 UTC 2013
State-Changed-Why:
commit bit has been taken in for safekeeping.
Responsible-Changed-From-To: mlaier->freeb
2006/11/10, Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, MQ wrote:
> 2006/11/5, Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Brooks Davis wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 02:46:30AM +, MQ wrote:
>> >> 2006/11/3, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> >>> The pa
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, MQ wrote:
2006/11/5, Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 02:46:30AM +, MQ wrote:
>> 2006/11/3, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> The particular definition used is excedingly ugly. At a minimum there
2006/11/5, Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 02:46:30AM +, MQ wrote:
>> 2006/11/3, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> The particular definition used is excedingly ugly. At a minimum there
>>> needs to be a define or a con
MQ wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> By the way, maybe printf should get better synchronized.
> When I was addressing some problems in the bge(4), the
> ill-synchronized printf made my console freezing before
> I restarted the machine.
Are you really sure that it's the culprit of freezing your console (I
think
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Brooks Davis wrote:
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 02:46:30AM +, MQ wrote:
2006/11/3, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The particular definition used is excedingly ugly. At a minimum there
needs to be a define or a constant "16" for the lenght rather than the
4*sizeof("123
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Brooks Davis wrote:
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 03:01:00AM +, MQ wrote:
2006/11/3, Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Friday 03 November 2006 10:46, MQ wrote:
By the way, implementing a printf/log which understands ipv4 address is
tedious, perhaps.
It certainly is.
Actua
2006/11/5, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 02:46:30AM +, MQ wrote:
> 2006/11/3, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 09:46:47AM +, MQ wrote:
> >> 2006/11/2, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:26:
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 02:46:30AM +, MQ wrote:
> 2006/11/3, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 09:46:47AM +, MQ wrote:
> >> 2006/11/2, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:26:27AM +, . wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >>
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 03:01:00AM +, MQ wrote:
> I use google mail web interface to post messages, I can't connect to the
> google mail POP server because someone disabled it on the firewall :(
>
> I don't know if this post will be better?
>
> 2006/11/3, Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
>
I use google mail web interface to post messages, I can't connect to the
google mail POP server because someone disabled it on the firewall :(
I don't know if this post will be better?
2006/11/3, Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hello "MQ",
your email client is seriously mis-configured, could y
2006/11/3, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 09:46:47AM +, MQ wrote:
> 2006/11/2, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:26:27AM +, . wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am confused by the use of inet_ntoa function in the kernel.
> >>
> >> The
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 09:46:47AM +, MQ wrote:
> 2006/11/2, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:26:27AM +, . wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am confused by the use of inet_ntoa function in the kernel.
> >>
> >> The function inet_ntoa in the /sys/libkern/inet_nto
Hello "MQ",
your email client is seriously mis-configured, could you please look into
this as it is a bit annoying.
On Friday 03 November 2006 10:46, MQ wrote:
> 2006/11/2, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:26:27AM +, . wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am confuse
2006/11/2, Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thursday 02 November 2006 11:32, LI Xin wrote:
> VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 06:19:43PM +0800, LI Xin wrote:
> > [.]
> >
> >> Sounds like a workaround to me and in theory that is insufficient
> >> for a MPSAFE protection.
2006/11/2, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:26:27AM +, . wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am confused by the use of inet_ntoa function in the kernel.
>
> The function inet_ntoa in the /sys/libkern/inet_ntoa.c uses a static
array
> static char buf[4 * sizeof "123"];
> to store t
2006/11/2, Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thursday 02 November 2006 09:26, . wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am confused by the use of inet_ntoa function in the kernel.
>
> The function inet_ntoa in the /sys/libkern/inet_ntoa.c uses a static
> array static char buf[4 * sizeof "123"];
> to store the result
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 08:26:27AM +, . wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am confused by the use of inet_ntoa function in the kernel.
>
> The function inet_ntoa in the /sys/libkern/inet_ntoa.c uses a static array
> static char buf[4 * sizeof "123"];
> to store the result. And it returns the address of the a
On Thursday 02 November 2006 11:32, LI Xin wrote:
> VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 06:19:43PM +0800, LI Xin wrote:
> > [.]
> >
> >> Sounds like a workaround to me and in theory that is insufficient
> >> for a MPSAFE protection. Here is a patch which reduces the chance
> >>
VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 06:19:43PM +0800, LI Xin wrote:
> [.]
>> Sounds like a workaround to me and in theory that is insufficient for a
>> MPSAFE protection. Here is a patch which reduces the chance where we
>> get a race.
>
> Hi.
>
> This patch will allow multiple
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 06:19:43PM +0800, LI Xin wrote:
[.]
> Sounds like a workaround to me and in theory that is insufficient for a
> MPSAFE protection. Here is a patch which reduces the chance where we
> get a race.
Hi.
This patch will allow multiple calls to inet_ntoa int the same
functi
Max Laier wrote:
> On Thursday 02 November 2006 09:26, . wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am confused by the use of inet_ntoa function in the kernel.
>>
>> The function inet_ntoa in the /sys/libkern/inet_ntoa.c uses a static
>> array static char buf[4 * sizeof "123"];
>> to store the result. And it returns th
On Thursday 02 November 2006 09:26, . wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am confused by the use of inet_ntoa function in the kernel.
>
> The function inet_ntoa in the /sys/libkern/inet_ntoa.c uses a static
> array static char buf[4 * sizeof "123"];
> to store the result. And it returns the address of the array to
Hi,
I am confused by the use of inet_ntoa function in the kernel.
The function inet_ntoa in the /sys/libkern/inet_ntoa.c uses a static array
static char buf[4 * sizeof "123"];
to store the result. And it returns the address of the array to the caller.
I think this inet_ntoa is not reentrant, th
24 matches
Mail list logo
