On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:09:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > Umm... How about the following, then? I think it makes the whole thing
> > simpler and saner... NOTE: this got only a light beating and we'd
> > just seen an example of lon
On Sun, 10 March 2013 23:33:18 +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 01:26:49PM -0500, J??rn Engel wrote:
>
> > + files_cookie = async_schedule(exit_files_async, tsk);
> > exit_mm(tsk);
> >
> > if (group_dead)
> > @@ -990,7 +998,7 @@ void do_exit(long code)
> >
> > exit
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Umm... How about the following, then? I think it makes the whole thing
> simpler and saner... NOTE: this got only a light beating and we'd
> just seen an example of long-standing breakage in that area; I'd really
> like to see it tortured by
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 07:43:53PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 08:31:50AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Probably not missing anything subtle. I think all of this code is very
> > old, and related to previous /proc//fd/ escapades. And the
> > semantics for those files
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 08:31:50AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Probably not missing anything subtle. I think all of this code is very
> old, and related to previous /proc//fd/ escapades. And the
> semantics for those files were in flux some time long long ago (the
> whole "dup vs new struct fil
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> While we are at it, I don't see any reason for having separate file_operations
> for r/o, w/o and r/w cases; the only differences are in EBADF-returning
> ->read() and ->write() (and ->f_mode checks in vfs_read() et.al. take care of
> that) and m
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 06:05:43PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 08:10:10AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmm... How the devil would things like pipe_read_open() get called,
> > > anyway?
> > > pipe_rdwr_open() can
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:30:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, that does the trick.
> > I changed your other diff a little to use a goto, which reduces a level of
> > indentation..
>
> Hmm. So I've been trying to figure th
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 08:10:10AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > Hmm... How the devil would things like pipe_read_open() get called, anyway?
> > pipe_rdwr_open() can be called, all right - that happens if you do pipe()
> > and then open() v
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Hmm... How the devil would things like pipe_read_open() get called, anyway?
> pipe_rdwr_open() can be called, all right - that happens if you do pipe()
> and then open() via /proc/self/fd/. But how could pipe_read_open() and
> pipe_write_open()
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:10:47PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:30:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > I must be missing something, and I wonder if the thing I'm missing is
> > that with OPEN_PATH we may now have open calls that don't actually
> > have FMODE_READ or FMODE
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 01:26:49PM -0500, J??rn Engel wrote:
> On Fri, 8 March 2013 10:30:01 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. So I've been trying to figure this out, and I really don't see
> > it. Every single pipe open routine *should* make sure that the inode
> > has an inode->i_pipe fi
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:30:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I must be missing something, and I wonder if the thing I'm missing is
> that with OPEN_PATH we may now have open calls that don't actually
> have FMODE_READ or FMODE_WRITE set at all.
With OPEN_PATH we don't call ->open() (or anyth
On Fri, 8 March 2013 10:30:01 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Hmm. So I've been trying to figure this out, and I really don't see
> it. Every single pipe open routine *should* make sure that the inode
> has an inode->i_pipe field. So if the open() has succeeded and you
> have a valid file descrip
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> Yeah, that does the trick.
> I changed your other diff a little to use a goto, which reduces a level of
> indentation..
Hmm. So I've been trying to figure this out, and I really don't see
it. Every single pipe open routine *should* make sure
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 04:21:13PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> >
> > The hits keep on coming..
> >
> > [ 255.609172] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
> > 0064
> > [ 255.610393] IP: [] pipe_release+
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> The hits keep on coming..
>
> [ 255.609172] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
> 0064
> [ 255.610393] IP: [] pipe_release+0x42/0xd0
Ok, I think this is the same issue as your fasync thing.
So add a "if (pi
17 matches
Mail list logo
