On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 15:33 -0700, Alexander Lam wrote:
>
>> To fix this we could go through the ftrace_trace_arrays list and use
>> addresses to check if a particular pointer to a trace_array is still
>> valid, but this is vulnerable to the
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 21:35 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > Is there a better way to fix this problem?
> >
> > Also unaddressed are all of the other files which use a trace_array,
> > trace_cpu, or ftrace_event_file in their operation - these would need
> > the same fix.
>
> Hmm, really? J
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 15:33 -0700, Alexander Lam wrote:
> To fix this we could go through the ftrace_trace_arrays list and use
> addresses to check if a particular pointer to a trace_array is still
> valid, but this is vulnerable to the ABA problem if a trace_array is
> freed and another is reallo
Hi all,
I noticed that a695cb58 "tracing: Prevent deleting instances when they
are being read" [1] still leaves open the possibility of the
trace_array being deleted before the reference counter is incremented.
Thread A creates a new instance "foo", then tries to open "foo/trace"
for writing, whi
4 matches
Mail list logo
