On 22/06/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:39:50 +0300
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We have patches for "very high non-preempt latency in
> > context_struct_compute_av()" and "list_add corruption. prev->next
> > should be next (f7d28794), but wa
That would be a bit like waiting for a Debian release and never happen.
Ok, but Debian seems to be stable and sometimes their teem
make releases =).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:39:50 +0300
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We have patches for "very high non-preempt latency in
> > context_struct_compute_av()" and "list_add corruption. prev->next
> > should be next (f7d28794), but was f0df8ed4 (prev=f0df8ed4) Kernel Bug
> > at lib/li
We have patches for "very high non-preempt latency in
context_struct_compute_av()" and "list_add corruption. prev->next
should be next (f7d28794), but was f0df8ed4 (prev=f0df8ed4) Kernel Bug
at lib/list_debug.c:33", but both are too intrusive.
Anyway, those bugs are not regressions.
Are you go
Hello! I'm a newbuy in kernel development.
Now I'm just trying to find out what is going in it =).
I noticed this:
(BTW. There is a new category called "Will be fixed in 2.6.23")
Is it really important to release 2.6.22 as soon as possible? I think
kernel should be 99% stable. Why not to wait
Linus Torvalds pisze:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Subject: long freezes on thinkpad t60
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/24/100
Submitter : Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Handled-By : Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/16/
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>
> Subject: long freezes on thinkpad t60
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/24/100
> Submitter : Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Handled-By : Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/16/81
> Status
Hi all,
Here is a list of some known regressions in 2.6.22-rc5
with patches available.
Feel free to add new regressions/remove fixed etc.
http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions
(BTW. There is a new category called "Will be fixed in 2.6.23")
Unclassified
Subject: Device hang when off
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Ok, here's a patch to do this. With that
> 55181000cd60334fe920c65ffbcdfe0e3f1de406
> should be reverted because it isn't needed anymore.
This seems buggy:
> + int notext = 0;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES
> + notext = 1;
> +#endif
> #ifdef CON
On 06/20/2007 07:04 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> As far as I know, the biggest reason to use DEBUG_RODATA is
>
> (a) Hey, it's a cheap way to check one thing
>
> (b) An added layer of security (which it's not that great for, but it
> might make sense to make it more of a real security feat
> Shouldn't we add something to the help texts?
>
> + This option also marks kernel text pages as write-protected,
> + except if you enable KPROBES.
>
> CMIIW.
>
> As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, replacing CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA by
> CONFIG_WRITEPROTECT_RODATA and CONFIG_WRITEPROTEC
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> --- linux-2.6.22-rc5/arch/i386/Kconfig.debug.org 2007-06-20
> 22:20:30.0 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.22-rc5/arch/i386/Kconfig.debug 2007-06-20 22:20:55.0
> -0700
> @@ -49,7 +49,6 @@ config DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> config DEBUG_RODATA
> bool "Write protect
On Thursday 21 June 2007 01:48:43 Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
> >
> > Surely the fundamental disagreement is only due to DEBUG_RODATA
> > covering write-protection of both .text, and .rodata ?
>
> I agree that we could well split DEBUG_RODATA into something
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 10:23:21PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 16:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > >
> > > the real fix would be something like this instead:
> >
> > If people can test this, and confirm it works,
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 16:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > the real fix would be something like this instead:
>
> If people can test this, and confirm it works, please send a patch that
> not only does this ad undoes the Kconfig language.
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> the real fix would be something like this instead:
If people can test this, and confirm it works, please send a patch that
not only does this ad undoes the Kconfig language. It looks like the
right thing to do, but I won't touch it without som
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> Surely the fundamental disagreement is only due to DEBUG_RODATA
> covering write-protection of both .text, and .rodata ?
I agree that we could well split DEBUG_RODATA into something more
fine-grained, and for example have it _only_ protect that .roda
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 04:15:53PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 19:07 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 03:38:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > And yes, that patch already got merged. However, the patch to *allow*
> > > Kprobes with DE
> Kprobes fundamntally disagrees with DEBUG_RODATA, there's no point in
> "working around it". Better just admit it.
that's wrong. KPROBE fundamentally disagrees with TEXT being read only,
which is a 2.6.22 new "feature".. and a buggy one at that.
the real fix would be something like this inst
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 19:07 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 03:38:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > And yes, that patch already got merged. However, the patch to *allow*
> > Kprobes with DEBUG_RODATA is not, and will not be. It's not a regression,
> > and quite frankl
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 03:38:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And yes, that patch already got merged. However, the patch to *allow*
> Kprobes with DEBUG_RODATA is not, and will not be. It's not a regression,
> and quite frankly, I don't think I would even want that patch.
>
> Kprobes f
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> There's just no *point*.
Put another way: we lived without DEBUG_RODATA for fifteen years, why
should we now start adding complexity to work around code that doesn't
accept the (fairly small) debugging it gives?
Has anybody actually found a bug
On 6/21/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And yes, sometimes debugging *does* change what it debugs. In timing, if
nothing else, but also in the kinds of things you can do.
Totally agree.
For example, we
don't allow slab redzoning on data structures that have alignment
restriction
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ian McDonald wrote:
>
> It depends on the purpose of DEBUG_RODATA. If DEBUG_RODATA was for
> security reasons then I agree, but it seems to be more to catch
> accidental writes.
Well, I'd say that it is *one* tool for debugging.
Now, Kprobes is another tool - and I'm just
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>
> Patch was just merged:
Well, that was the patch to make the conflict explicit, and just not
allowing DEBUG_RODATA with KPROBES.
(And it has a "temporary" marker, which I actually think is wrong).
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this li
On 6/21/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, for 2.6.22, Kprobes will just be disabled if you use DEBUG_RODATA.
And yes, that patch already got merged. However, the patch to *allow*
Kprobes with DEBUG_RODATA is not, and will not be. It's not a regression,
and quite frankly, I don'
On 6/21/07, Chuck Ebbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Subject: CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA prevents kprobes from working on
>> 2.6.22-rc2
>> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/23/202
>> Submitter : William Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Ian McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Handled-B
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ian McDonald wrote:
>
> Can this one be merged so that it makes it into 2.6.22?
>
> >
> > Subject: CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA prevents kprobes from working on 2.6.22-rc2
> > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/23/202
> > Submitter : William Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
On 06/20/2007 06:08 PM, Ian McDonald wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> Can this one be merged so that it makes it into 2.6.22?
>
>>
>> Subject: CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA prevents kprobes from working on
>> 2.6.22-rc2
>> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/23/202
>> Submitter : William Cohen <[EMAIL PROTEC
Andrew,
Can this one be merged so that it makes it into 2.6.22?
Subject: CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA prevents kprobes from working on 2.6.22-rc2
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/23/202
Submitter : William Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Handled-By :
On 17/06/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject: long freezes on thinkpad t60
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/24/100
> Submitter : Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Handled-By : Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Pat
* Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject: long freezes on thinkpad t60
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/24/100
> Submitter : Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Handled-By : Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/16/81
> Status
Hi all,
Here is a list of some known regressions in 2.6.22-rc5
with patches available.
Feel free to add new regressions/remove fixed etc.
http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions
Unclassified
Subject: CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA prevents kprobes from working on 2.6.22-rc2
References : http://l
33 matches
Mail list logo
