On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 05:27:32PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 05:07:10PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 08:56:11PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 08:24:03PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > >
> > > > Russell, could you recall what those
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 05:07:10PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 08:56:11PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 08:24:03PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > > Russell, could you recall what those had been about? I'm not sure if that
> > > had been oopsable that
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 08:56:11PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 08:24:03PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > Russell, could you recall what those had been about? I'm not sure if that
> > had been oopsable that far back (again, oops scenario is userland stack
> > page getting swapped
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 08:24:03PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Russell, could you recall what those had been about? I'm not sure if that
> had been oopsable that far back (again, oops scenario is userland stack
> page getting swapped out before we get to start_thread(), leading to
> direct read from
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 06:26:40PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> and the last 3 make no sense whatsoever. Note that on normal execve() we'll
> be going through the syscall return, so the userland will see 0 in there,
> no matter what do we do here. Theoretically, it might've been done for
> ptrace sake
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 08:21:53PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On 14.10.2012 19:55, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 06:26:40PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 06:44:12PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> >>> On Oct 14, 2012 6:40 PM, "Al Viro" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oc
On 14.10.2012 19:55, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 06:26:40PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 06:44:12PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
>>> On Oct 14, 2012 6:40 PM, "Al Viro" wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 05:35:23PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> I rebased m
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 06:26:40PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 06:44:12PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 2012 6:40 PM, "Al Viro" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 05:35:23PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> > >
> > > > I rebased my ARM development branch and figur
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 06:44:12PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2012 6:40 PM, "Al Viro" wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 05:35:23PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> >
> > > I rebased my ARM development branch and figured that your patch 9fff2fa
> > > ("arm: switch to saner kernel_execve
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 05:35:23PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> I rebased my ARM development branch and figured that your patch 9fff2fa
> ("arm: switch to saner kernel_execve() semantics") breaks the boot on my
> board right after init is invoked via NFS:
OK, revert it is, then. Nothing in the tr
10 matches
Mail list logo