ping?
On 4/11/19, 5:49 PM, "Debabrata Banerjee" wrote:
Fixes:
commit 1e381f60dad9 ("ext4: do not allow journal_opts for fs w/o journal")
Instead of removing EXT4_MOUNT_JOURNAL_CHECKSUM from s_def_mount_opt as
I assume was intended, all other options were blown away leading
> From: Eric W. Biederman [mailto:ebied...@xmission.com]
>
> I agree there is an inconsistency on the directory permissions for the ns
> directory that could reasonably be fixed.
So you'd recommend taking this patch as-is?
> prctl(PR_SET_DUMPABLE, 0) is an interesting. Fundamentally it is about
Actually, this patch is incomplete. proc_ns_get_link() and proc_ns_readlink()
gate on ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_READ_FSCREDS). I'm not sure why
this is here either. It seems problematic that after a user creates a pid
namespace, that a user cannot tell anymore which namespace new pids
On 1/13/15, 5:01 PM, "John Heffner" wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Banerjee, Debabrata
> wrote:
>> On 1/13/15, 4:36 PM, "Yuchung Cheng" wrote:
>>
>>>RFC2861 resets the cwnd like in RFC2581, but the rest of the code
>>>im
On 1/13/15, 4:36 PM, "Yuchung Cheng" wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Debabrata Banerjee
>wrote:
>>
>> -/* RFC2861. Reset CWND after idle period longer RTO to "restart
>>window".
>> +/* RFC2581 4.1. Reset CWND after idle period longer RTO to "restart
>>window".
>> * This is the first p
Hi,
On 7/30/14, 3:33 PM, "Julian Anastasov" wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2014, Debabrata Banerjee wrote:
>
>> commit d23ff701643a4a725e2c7a8ba2d567d39daa29ea introduced netlink
>>support for
>> the new tcp_metrics, however it restricted getting of tcp_metrics to
>>root user
>> only. This is a change fr
On 2/16/14, 7:41 PM, "Linus Torvalds"
wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Banerjee, Debabrata
> wrote:
>>
>> No that can't be right, the prev value after every loop is the
>>msg->flags
>> from the *last* line in the list, which has no relatio
On 2/16/14, 6:59 PM, "Linus Torvalds"
wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Banerjee, Debabrata
> wrote:
>>
>> The explanation is: the loops look identical but they are not. When a
>> record is printed first, its size can expand due to adding the prefix
>
On 2/16/14, 2:28 PM, "Linus Torvalds"
wrote:
>Why are *those* particular two "prev = msg->flags" incorrect, when
>every other case where we walk the messages they are required?
>
>The code/logic makes no sense. You remove the "prev = msg->flags" at
>line 1070, when the *identical* loop just above
On Aug 23, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "Lin Ming" wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Banerjee, Debabrata
> wrote:
>> This code tries to send a neighbor discovery ICMPv6 packet for router
>> reachability while read_lock(tb6_lock) is held. The send may want to cause
&
This code tries to send a neighbor discovery ICMPv6 packet for router
reachability while read_lock(tb6_lock) is held. The send may want to cause
a fib6_clean_all() garbage collection, which will try to take
write_lock(tb6_lock), resulting in deadlock. Garbage collection becomes
more likely under hi
11 matches
Mail list logo
