On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> I guess I will have to double-check that the slub corruption is gone
> still with that fixed.
So I'm not getting any warnings now from SLUB debugging. So the
original bug seems to not have re-surfaced, and the registration bug
is gone, s
On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> This COMPLETELY UNTESTED patch tries to fix the nf_hook_entry code to do this.
>
> I repeat: it's ENTIRELY UNTESTED.
Gaah.
That patch was subtle garbage.
The "add to list" thing did this:
rcu_assign_pointer(entry->next, p);
Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>>
>> So as I already answered to Dave, I'm not actually sure that this was
>> the buggy code, or that my patch would make any difference at all.
>
> My patch does seem to fix things, and in fact the warning about
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> So as I already answered to Dave, I'm not actually sure that this was
> the buggy code, or that my patch would make any difference at all.
My patch does seem to fix things, and in fact the warning about "hook
not found" now triggers.
So
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Aaron Conole wrote:
>
> Okay, I'm looking it over. Sorry for the mess.
So as I already answered to Dave, I'm not actually sure that this was
the buggy code, or that my patch would make any difference at all.
I never got a good reproducer for the bug: I spent muc
Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>>
>> There is one *correct* way to remove an entry from a singly linked
>> list, and it looks like this:
>>
>> struct entry **pp, *p;
>>
>> pp = &head;
>> while ((p = *pp) != NULL) {
>> if (righ
On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> There is one *correct* way to remove an entry from a singly linked
> list, and it looks like this:
>
> struct entry **pp, *p;
>
> pp = &head;
> while ((p = *pp) != NULL) {
> if (right_entry(p)) {
> *pp = p->n
On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
>
> I was just about to build and test something similar:
So I haven't actually tested that one, but looking at the code, it
really looks very bogus. In fact, that code just looks like crap. It
does *not* do a proper "remove singly linked list e
Florian Westphal writes:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Linus Torvalds
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Anyway, I don't think I can bisect it, but I'll try to narrow it down
>> > a *bit* at least.
>> >
>> > Not doing any more pulls on this unstable base, I've been puttering
>> >
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, I don't think I can bisect it, but I'll try to narrow it down
> > a *bit* at least.
> >
> > Not doing any more pulls on this unstable base, I've been puttering
> > around in trying to clean up some st
On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> Anyway, I don't think I can bisect it, but I'll try to narrow it down
> a *bit* at least.
>
> Not doing any more pulls on this unstable base, I've been puttering
> around in trying to clean up some stupid printk logging issues
> instead.
11 matches
Mail list logo
