[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOLZvyH50AzTx+E7GxwGs6HjL8cDyzVC58t1Wq-Ly4xJsG41sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 12:04:01 +0200
From: Manuel Lauss <manuel.lauss@...glemail.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.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 Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 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?
I stuck a few printk's in the init path, the first "schedule()" in
init/main.c::rest_init()
starts it. I don't know enough kernel (yet) to trace it further, sorry.
Manuel
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.
