On 2017/11/1 5:59, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 17:03:23 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
static LIST_HEAD(smp_alt_modules);
-static DEFINE_MUTEX(smp_alt);
-static bool uniproc_patched = false; /* protected by smp_alt */
+static bool uniproc_patched = false; /* protected by tex
Oops, this is very wrong. Please ignore this patchset. Sorry for the noise...
Thanks!
On 2017/10/28 20:50, Zhou Chengming wrote:
The alternatives_smp_lock/unlock only be used on UP, so we don't
need to hold the text_mutex when text_poke(). Then in the next patch,
we can remove the outside smp_
On 2017/10/28 16:43, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 21:30:24 +0800
zhouchengming wrote:
On 2017/10/27 20:33, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 07:42:45PM +0800, zhouchengming wrote:
This is a real bug happened on one of our machines, below is the calltrace.
We can
On 2017/10/27 22:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 02:33:48PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 07:42:45PM +0800, zhouchengming wrote:
This is a real bug happened on one of our machines, below is the calltrace.
We can see the trigger is at
On 2017/10/27 20:33, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 07:42:45PM +0800, zhouchengming wrote:
This is a real bug happened on one of our machines, below is the calltrace.
We can see the trigger is at alternatives_text_reserved+0x20/0x80, and
encounter a deleted (poisoned) list_head
On 2017/10/27 19:15, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 05:34:44PM +0800, Zhou Chengming wrote:
Fixes: 2cfa197 "ftrace/alternatives: Introducing *_text_reserved
functions"
We use alternatives_text_reserved() to check if the address is in
the fixed pieces of alternative reserved, but
On 2017/10/27 15:49, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 03:18:12PM +0800, Zhou Chengming wrote:
In the current code, we don't free smp_alt_modules when enable smp,
so have to wait module unload to call alternatives_smp_module_del()
to free its smp_alt_module. This strategy has shortc
On 2017/10/27 13:57, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:56:40 +0800
Zhou Chengming wrote:
Changes from v1:
- We should put the modifies of the kprobe after the re-reg check.
- And then the address_safe check.
- When check_kprobe_address_safe() return fail, the *probed_mod
should
On 2017/10/26 22:39, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:11:25 +0800
Zhou Chengming wrote:
Old code use check_kprobe_rereg() to check if the kprobe has been
registered already, but check_kprobe_rereg() will release the
kprobe_mutex then, so maybe two paths will pass the check and
re
On 2017/10/11 15:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
The function-trace<-> perf interface is a tad messed up. Where all
the other trace<-> perf interfaces use a single trace hook
registration and use per-cpu RCU based hlist to iterate the events,
function-trace actually needs multiple hook registrations
Hi Steven, Peter,
On 2017/9/26 11:18, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:23:20 +0800
zhouchengming wrote:
On 2017/9/26 3:40, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:51:49 +0800
Zhou Chengming wrote:
push_rt_task() pick the first pushable task and find an eligible
On 2017/9/26 3:40, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:51:49 +0800
Zhou Chengming wrote:
push_rt_task() pick the first pushable task and find an eligible
lowest_rq, then double_lock_balance(rq, lowest_rq). So if
double_lock_balance() unlock the rq (when double_lock_balance() return 1)
ping...
Or it isn't a real problem ?
Thanks.
On 2017/9/11 14:51, Zhou Chengming wrote:
push_rt_task() pick the first pushable task and find an eligible
lowest_rq, then double_lock_balance(rq, lowest_rq). So if
double_lock_balance() unlock the rq (when double_lock_balance() return 1),
we have to
polite ping and +cc, thanks!
On 2017/9/11 14:51, Zhou Chengming wrote:
push_rt_task() pick the first pushable task and find an eligible
lowest_rq, then double_lock_balance(rq, lowest_rq). So if
double_lock_balance() unlock the rq (when double_lock_balance() return 1),
we have to check if this ta
On 2017/6/22 22:41, Mark Rutland wrote:
Regardless of which events form a group, it does not make sense for the
events to target different tasks and/or CPUs, as this leaves the group
inconsistent and impossible to schedule. The core perf code assumes that
these are consistent across (successfully
On 2017/6/20 21:08, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
Zhou Chengming writes:
The else branch are broken for taskctx:
This is not a good way to open a commit message.
two events can on the same taskctx, but on different cpu.
How?
fd1 = perf_open_event(attr, pid, 0, -1, flags);
fd2 = perf_open_eve
On 2017/3/28 19:16, Miroslav Benes wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, zhouchengming wrote:
On 2017/3/28 17:00, Miroslav Benes wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Zhou Chengming wrote:
It's reported that the time of insmoding a klp.ko for one of our
out-tree modules is too long.
~ time sudo i
On 2017/3/28 17:00, Miroslav Benes wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Zhou Chengming wrote:
It's reported that the time of insmoding a klp.ko for one of our
out-tree modules is too long.
~ time sudo insmod klp.ko
real0m23.799s
user0m0.036s
sys 0m21.256s
Is this stable through seve
On 2017/3/10 23:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 03/08/2017 07:20 PM, Zhou Chengming wrote:
When we activate policy on the request_queue, we will create policy_date
for all the existing blkgs of the request_queue, so we should call
pd_init_fn() and pd_online_fn() on these newly created policy_data.
Sig
On 2017/1/16 17:05, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Zhou Chengming wrote:
Can you please stop sending the same patch over and over every other day?
Granted, things get forgotten, but sending a polite reminder after a week
is definitely enough.
Maintainers are not machines respondin
On 2017/1/5 19:56, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2017/1/5 19:33, Zhou Chengming wrote:
Fixes CVE-2016-9191.
CVE-2016-9191 says that it's cgroup bug but turns out it's
not, I think you need to add more commit message to
explain it? For example, we got different calltrace stack
but all of them point to d
On 2016/12/7 1:06, Abel Vesa wrote:
This is just an idea I've been trying out for a while now.
Just in case somebody wants to play with it, this applies to linux-arm/for-next.
Also please note that this was only tested in qemu, but I will do some testing
on some real hardware in the following d
On 2016/7/21 5:36, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 07/19/2016 09:18 PM, Zhou Chengming wrote:
When CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_EXTREME is disabled, __section_nr can get
the section number with a subtraction directly.
Does this actually *do* anything?
It was a long time ago, but if I remember correctly, the entire
, 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 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
th
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
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 introsuced to avoid run-time
detection of the task type.
Signed-off-by: Yury Norov
[...]
Hello, I found ilp32
On 2016/5/24 8:04, Yury Norov wrote:
Here new aarch32 ptrace syscall handler is introsuced to avoid run-time
detection of the task type.
Signed-off-by: Yury Norov
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd32.h | 2 +-
arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c| 50 ++-
ar
Please ignore this patch v3. I forgot to change the function
unmerge_and_remove_all_rmap_items(). Patch v4 will be the
final version, I think.. Sorry for my carelessness.
Thanks!
On 2016/5/8 14:56, Zhou Chengming wrote:
A concurrency issue about KSM in the function scan_get_next_rmap_item.
tas
On 2016/5/7 12:04, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2016, zhouchengming wrote:
On 2016/5/6 5:07, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2016 20:42:56 +0800 Zhou Chengming
wrote:
A concurrency issue about KSM in the function scan_get_next_rmap_item.
task A (ksmd): |task
On 2016/5/6 22:24, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 11:27:36AM +0800, Zhou Chengming wrote:
@@ -1650,16 +1647,22 @@ next_mm:
*/
hash_del(&slot->link);
list_del(&slot->mm_list);
- spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);
On 2016/5/6 5:57, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hello Zhou,
Great catch.
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 08:42:56PM +0800, Zhou Chengming wrote:
remove_trailing_rmap_items(slot, ksm_scan.rmap_list);
+ up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
spin_lock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);
ksm_scan.mm_slot = list
On 2016/5/6 5:07, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2016 20:42:56 +0800 Zhou Chengming
wrote:
A concurrency issue about KSM in the function scan_get_next_rmap_item.
task A (ksmd): |task B (the mm's task):
|
mm = slot->mm;
On 2015/11/4 17:44, Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Zhou Chengming wrote:
When enable KASLR, func->old_addr will be set to zero
and livepatch will find the right old address.
But for reloc, livepatch just verify it using reloc->val
(old addr from user), so verify failed and report
"kerne
35 matches
Mail list logo
