Am 24.06.2016 um 12:40 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab :
> Em Tue, 31 May 2016 12:16:25 +0200
> Markus Heiser escreveu:
>
>> Am 30.05.2016 um 23:23 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>> :
>>
>>> Em Mon, 30 May 2016 23:05:34 +0300
>>> Jani Nikula escreveu:
>>>
> I worry a little bit in that reS
Hi Zhou,
Thank you for the patch. The idea is ok, but patch format got broken
for some reason. Could you re-send it?
Yury.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:49:05PM +0800, zhouchengming wrote:
> atus: RO
> Content-Length: 4732
> Lines: 181
>
> The function compat_ptrace_request(used by ilp32) don't ha
The function compat_ptrace_request(used by ilp32) don't handle
{GET,SET}SIGMASK request, so it will be handled by ptrace_request.
But it's wrong because the compat_sigset_t of ilp32 differs from
the sigset_t of aarch64. The patch fixes it.
Signed-off-by: Zhou Chengming
---
arch/arm64/include/as
The {GET,SET}SIGMASK request of ptrace on ilp32 is wrong, it's handled
by ptrace_request(like aarch64). So I write a patch to fix it(just for
ilp32). I will send the patch next.
Thanks!
On 2016/6/18 7:54, Yury Norov wrote:
Here new aarch32 ptrace syscall handler is introsuced to avoid run-time
On 2016/6/25 22:15, Bamvor Zhang wrote:
Hi, Chengming
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 5:36 PM, zhouchengming
wrote:
On 2016/6/9 1:00, Yury Norov wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 09:34:09AM +0800, zhouchengming wrote:
On 2016/5/24 8:04, Yury Norov wrote:
Here new aarch32 ptrace syscall handler is
Hello,
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:34:41PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> If a user has a setup where they wait for notifications on changes to
> pids.event, and then auto-adjust the cgroup limits based on the number of
> failures you have a race condition between reading the pids.event file and
> th
Hello, Topi.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Topi Miettinen wrote:
> The parent might be able do it if proc/pid/xyz files are still
> accessible after child exit but before its exit status is collected. But
> if the parent doesn't do it (and you are not able to change it to do it)
> and it colle
On 06/24/16 17:24, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Serge.
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:59:10AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>> Just monitoring is less jarring than implementing security enforcement
>>> via cgroup, but it is still jarring. What's wrong with recursive
>>> process hierarchy monitoring
On 06/24/16 17:21, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Serge E. Hallyn" writes:
>
>> Quoting Tejun Heo (t...@kernel.org):
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:59:16AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Tejun Heo (t...@kernel.org):
> But isn't being recursive orthogonal to using cgrou
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 01:00:48PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
This allows users to dynamically adjust their limits based on how many
failed forks happened since they last reset their limits, otherwise they
would have to track (in a racy way) how many limit failures there were
since the last limit
10 matches
Mail list logo
