On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 11:48:27AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> I'd prefer that as well but if nobody pops up, I'll just push this to my
> tree next week and will see what breaks :)
Right. You could send a proper patch and Cc the usual suspects as now it
is buried in some thread which people might not
On Thu 26-11-20 01:01:30, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 15:50, Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 24-11-20 09:45:07, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:46:51PM +0100, Paweł Jasiak wrote:
> > > > On 23/11/20, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > OK, with a help of Boris Petko
On Tue 24-11-20 11:28:14, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:20:33AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 24-11-20 09:45:07, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:46:51PM +0100, Paweł Jasiak wrote:
> > > > On 23/11/20, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > OK, with a help of Bor
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 15:50, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> On Tue 24-11-20 09:45:07, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:46:51PM +0100, Paweł Jasiak wrote:
> > > On 23/11/20, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > OK, with a help of Boris Petkov I think I have a fix that looks correct
> > > > (attach).
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:20:33AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 24-11-20 09:45:07, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:46:51PM +0100, Paweł Jasiak wrote:
> > > On 23/11/20, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > OK, with a help of Boris Petkov I think I have a fix that looks correct
> > > > (
On Tue 24-11-20 09:45:07, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:46:51PM +0100, Paweł Jasiak wrote:
> > On 23/11/20, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > OK, with a help of Boris Petkov I think I have a fix that looks correct
> > > (attach). Can you please try whether it works for you? Thanks!
> >
>
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:46:51PM +0100, Paweł Jasiak wrote:
> On 23/11/20, Jan Kara wrote:
> > OK, with a help of Boris Petkov I think I have a fix that looks correct
> > (attach). Can you please try whether it works for you? Thanks!
>
> Unfortunately I am getting a linker error.
>
> ld: arch/x
On 23/11/20, Jan Kara wrote:
> OK, with a help of Boris Petkov I think I have a fix that looks correct
> (attach). Can you please try whether it works for you? Thanks!
Unfortunately I am getting a linker error.
ld: arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.o:(.rodata+0x54c): undefined reference to
`__ia32_sys_i
On Tue 03-11-20 22:17:47, Paweł Jasiak wrote:
> I have written small patch that fixes problem for me and doesn't break
> x86_64.
OK, with a help of Boris Petkov I think I have a fix that looks correct
(attach). Can you please try whether it works for you? Thanks!
On Tue 03-11-20 22:17:47, Paweł Jasiak wrote:
> I have written small patch that fixes problem for me and doesn't break
> x86_64.
Yeah, that looks sensible, thanks for the patch. But I'm waiting for some
explanation from x86 folks when compat handlers are really needed and why
it wasn't needed befo
I have written small patch that fixes problem for me and doesn't break
x86_64.
diff --git a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
index 3e01d8f2ab90..cf0b97309975 100644
--- a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
+++ b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
@@ -1285,12
On 02/11/20, Jan Kara wrote:
> Strange. Thanks for report. Looks like some issue got created / exposed
> somewhere between 5.5 and 5.9 (actually probably between 5.5 and 5.7
> because the Linaro report you mentioned [1] is from 5.7-rc6). There were
> no changes in this area in fanotify, I think it
On Sun 01-11-20 22:27:38, Paweł Jasiak wrote:
> I am trying to run examples from man fanotify.7 but fanotify_mark always
> fail with errno = EFAULT.
>
> fanotify_mark declaration is
>
> SYSCALL_DEFINE5(fanotify_mark, int, fanotify_fd, unsigned int, flags,
> __u64, mask
On 01/11/20, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 10:27:38PM +0100, Paweł Jasiak wrote:
> > I am trying to run examples from man fanotify.7 but fanotify_mark always
> > fail with errno = EFAULT.
> >
> > fanotify_mark declaration is
> >
> > SYSCALL_DEFINE5(fanotify_mark, int, fanotify_f
On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 10:27:38PM +0100, Paweł Jasiak wrote:
> I am trying to run examples from man fanotify.7 but fanotify_mark always
> fail with errno = EFAULT.
>
> fanotify_mark declaration is
>
> SYSCALL_DEFINE5(fanotify_mark, int, fanotify_fd, unsigned int, flags,
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
