[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx+JOeDoNzs+1wfdK3kpNPyS9wpU1OT=VAwvWPXfMVuDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 22:19:24 -1000
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
Manuel Lauss <manuel.lauss@...glemail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] shm: fix a race between shm_exit() and shm_init()
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> wrote:
>
> Reordering the initcalls seems the easiest solution, but it is still very
> fragile...
So that's what I tried to do, by making it a "pure_initcall()". Even
that didn't seem to be enough according to Manuel.
Can you try my patch (that makes just that ipc ns init be a
pure_initcall(), together with your hack on top of Andrew's? What is
it that happens so early that even pure_initcall() hasn't been done
yet?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
