On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:49:06PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> Thanks for fixing this. There is at least one other critical, 100 %
> reproducable, bug that allows non-root users to crash the system; PR
> kern/38889 (see also tests/lib/libc/sys/t_mmap; "mmap_block").
I'm investigating...
But: I
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 02:20:04AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> hi,
>
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: joerg
> > Date: Mon May 7 16:16:44 UTC 2012
> >
> > Modified Files:
> > src/sys/arch/amd64/include: vmparam.h
> > src/sys/arch/i386/include: vmparam
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:41:11AM +, Martin Husemann wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: martin
> Date: Wed May 16 09:41:11 UTC 2012
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/kern: sys_pipe.c
>
> Log Message:
> Make sure we can deliver two file descriptors for pipe2() before we set
On 05/16/12 14:00, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> Le 16/05/12 10:45, Christoph Egger a écrit :
>> On 05/13/12 13:24, Martin Husemann wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 01:04:15PM +0200, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
Are you sure that moving to low priority xcalls is the way to go? You
can end up
Le 16/05/12 10:45, Christoph Egger a écrit :
On 05/13/12 13:24, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 01:04:15PM +0200, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
Are you sure that moving to low priority xcalls is the way to go? You
can end up with CPUs not being updated because they are offline.
Curi
On 05/13/12 13:24, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 01:04:15PM +0200, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
>> Are you sure that moving to low priority xcalls is the way to go? You
>> can end up with CPUs not being updated because they are offline.
>
> Curiously, while I could reproduce the cr
