On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 09:40:48AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> + live-patching folks,
>
> Finally, things are starting to be much clearer. Thanks for the time
> for working on this, some more comments below and a question which
> I think deserves some attention.
>
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 0
+ live-patching folks,
Finally, things are starting to be much clearer. Thanks for the time
for working on this, some more comments below and a question which
I think deserves some attention.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 04:18:10PM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
> The synchronization here is just to ensure
On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 01:21:53PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:18:10 +0800 Changbin Du wrote:
> > The synchronization here is just to ensure the module init's been freed
> > before doing W+X checking. But the commit 1a7b7d922081 ("modules: Use
> > vmalloc special flag") mo
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:18:10 +0800 Changbin Du wrote:
> The synchronization here is just to ensure the module init's been freed
> before doing W+X checking. But the commit 1a7b7d922081 ("modules: Use
> vmalloc special flag") moves do_free_init() into a global workqueue
> instead of call_rcu(). So
The synchronization here is just to ensure the module init's been freed
before doing W+X checking. But the commit 1a7b7d922081 ("modules: Use
vmalloc special flag") moves do_free_init() into a global workqueue
instead of call_rcu(). So now rcu_barrier() can not ensure that do_free_init
has complete
5 matches
Mail list logo
