Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] ipc: IPCMNI limit check for msgmni and shmmni

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 07:57:12PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 05/07/2018 06:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 04:59:09PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >> A user can write arbitrary integer values to msgmni and shmmni sysctl > >> param

Re: [PATCH 00/18] Fix some build warnings/errors with Sphinx

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 10:13:42AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Mon, 7 May 2018 06:35:36 -0300 > Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > I decided to give a try with Sphinx last stable version > > (1.17.4), and noticed several issues. The worse one was > > with the

Re: [PATCH 02/18] docs: fix location of request_firmware & friends

into its own directory") > Cc: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> > Cc: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+sams...@kernel.org> > --- > Documentation/dell

Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] ipc: Allow boot time extension of IPCMNI from 32k to 2M

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 04:59:11PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > diff --git a/ipc/ipc_sysctl.c b/ipc/ipc_sysctl.c > index 49f9bf4..d62335f 100644 > --- a/ipc/ipc_sysctl.c > +++ b/ipc/ipc_sysctl.c > @@ -120,7 +120,8 @@ static int proc_ipc_sem_dointvec(struct ctl_table *table, > int write, > static

Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] ipc: IPCMNI limit check for msgmni and shmmni

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 04:59:09PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > A user can write arbitrary integer values to msgmni and shmmni sysctl > parameters without getting error, but the actual limit is really > IPCMNI (32k). This can mislead users as they think they can get a > value that is not real. > >

Re: LICENSES: Missing ISC text & possibly a category ("Not recommended" vs. "Preferred licenses")

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 07:03:15AM +, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 07:26:17AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > I see it is only used in a very small number of dts files. Why not just > > use BSD-2-Clause instead? What do you find in ISC that i

Re: LICENSES: Missing ISC text & possibly a category ("Not recommended" vs. "Preferred licenses")

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 07:26:17AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > I see it is only used in a very small number of dts files. Why not just > use BSD-2-Clause instead? What do you find in ISC that is not available > to you with just BSD? ISC license is a simplified version of the BSD license

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Update references to drivers/base/firmware_class.c

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 12:02:56AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > This source file has been renamed in 4.17. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings Thanks but Hans beat you to it: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180408160621.13042-1-hdego...@redhat.com Luis -- To unsubscribe from

Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] sysctl: Add flags to support min/max range clamping

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 02:47:18PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 03/29/2018 02:15 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:39:19AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >> On 03/16/2018 09:10 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:13

Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] ipc: Clamp *mni to the real IPCMNI limit & increase that limit

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 06:19:35PM +, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Andrew, > > please drop these patches until further notice. I would recommend we avoid > merging > these patches until we get proper Acked-by for the entire set. Waiman has a > bit more > work to do a

Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] ipc: Clamp *mni to the real IPCMNI limit & increase that limit

Andrew, please drop these patches until further notice. I would recommend we avoid merging these patches until we get proper Acked-by for the entire set. Waiman has a bit more work to do and even after the 5th iteration this is not right yet. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the

Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] proc/sysctl: Provide additional ctl_table.flags checks

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:35:19AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 03/16/2018 08:54 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:13:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >> Checking code is added to provide the following additional > >> ctl_table.flags check

Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] sysctl: Add flags to support min/max range clamping

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:39:19AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 03/16/2018 09:10 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:13:42PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >> When the CTL_FLAGS_CLAMP_RANGE flag is set in the ctl_table > >> entry, an

Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] sysctl: Add flags to support min/max range clamping

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:13:42PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > When the CTL_FLAGS_CLAMP_RANGE flag is set in the ctl_table > entry, any update from the userspace will be clamped to the given > range without error if either the proc_dointvec_minmax() or the > proc_douintvec_minmax() handlers is

Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] proc/sysctl: Provide additional ctl_table.flags checks

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:13:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > Checking code is added to provide the following additional > ctl_table.flags checks: > > 1) No unknown flag is allowed. > 2) Minimum of a range cannot be larger than the maximum value. > 3) The signed and unsigned flags are

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/7] Documentation: Add three sysctls for smart idle poll

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:46:39AM +, Yang Zhang wrote: > To reduce the cost of poll, we introduce three sysctl to control the > poll time. This commit does not describe in any way the fact that these knobs are all for and only for PARAVIRT. > diff --git a/Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt

Re: [PATCH v3] printk: Add boottime and real timestamps

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 02:17:33PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > On 08/07/2017 01:14 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > > Note printk_late_init() is a late_initcall(). This means if the > > printk_time_setting was disabled it will take a while to enable it

Re: [PATCH v3] printk: Add boottime and real timestamps

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:18:44PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > index fc47863f629c..8f093dd0a733 100644 > --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c > +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c > @@ -1202,8 +1204,119 @@ static inline void boot_delay_msec(int level) > } > #endif > > -static bool printk_time =

Re: [PATCH v2] printk: Add boottime and real timestamps

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 08:55:28AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > diff --git a/arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig > b/arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig > index 4a4b16e56d35..23da8e5297a1 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig > +++ b/arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig > @@ -283,7 +283,13

Re: [PATCH 1/2] printk: Make CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME an int

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 08:17:26AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c > index fc47863f629c..26cf6cadd267 100644 > --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c > +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c > @@ -1202,8 +1202,40 @@ static inline void boot_delay_msec(int

Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] kmod: throttle kmod thread limit

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 01:38:31PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Fri 2017-06-23 12:20:11, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > If we reach the limit of modprobe_limit threads running the next > > request_module() call will fail. The original reason for adding > > a kill was to

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] kmod: help make deterministic

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 05:26:05PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote: > +++ Luis R. Rodriguez [27/06/17 00:44 +0200]: > > Feel free to decouple it, but note that then the commit log must then be > > changed. My own take is this fix is not so critical as it is a corner case, > >

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] kmod: help make deterministic

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:44:42AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:37:36PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote: > > +++ Kees Cook [20/06/17 17:23 -0700]: > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> > > > wrote: &

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] kmod: help make deterministic

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:37:36PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote: > +++ Kees Cook [20/06/17 17:23 -0700]: > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> > > wrote: > > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 02:12:24PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > &g

[PATCH v4 4/4] kmod: throttle kmod thread limit

./kmod.sh -t 0009 real0m56.080s user0m0.717s sys 0m10.324s Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- kernel/kmod.c| 17 - tools/testing/selftests/kmod/kmod.sh | 24 ++-- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 31 del

[PATCH v4 2/4] kmod: reduce atomic operations on kmod_concurrent and simplify

in boot through an init call by simply sticking to 50 as the kmod_concurrent_max. The assumption here is a system with modules must at least have ~16 MiB of RAM. Suggested-by: Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> Suggested-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Ro

Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] kmod: throttle kmod thread limit

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 07:56:11PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 06:16:19PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 05:19:36PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > On Fri 2017-05-26 14:12:28, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] kmod: throttle kmod thread limit

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 06:16:19PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 05:19:36PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Fri 2017-05-26 14:12:28, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > --- a/kernel/kmod.c > > > +++ b/kernel/kmod.c > > > @@ -178,6 +175

Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] kmod: throttle kmod thread limit

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 05:19:36PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Fri 2017-05-26 14:12:28, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > --- a/kernel/kmod.c > > +++ b/kernel/kmod.c > > @@ -163,14 +163,11 @@ int __request_module(bool wait, const char *fmt, ...) >

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] kmod: help make deterministic

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 02:12:24PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > This v3 nukes the proc sysctl interface in favor for just letting userspace > just check kernel revision. Prior to whenever this is merged userspace should > try to avoid hammering more than 50 kmod threads as they

[PATCH v3 0/4] kmod: help make deterministic

epends on any other patches, the series is independent. As usual the series is available on my linux-next 20170526-kmod-only branch which is based on next-20170526. [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux-next.git/log/?h=20170526-kmod-only Luis Luis R. Rodriguez (4):

Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] kmod: add helpers for getting kmod limit

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:56:51PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:16:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > This adds helpers for getting access to the kmod limit from > > userspace. This knob should help userspace more gracefully and > > det

[PATCH v3 1/4] module: use list_for_each_entry_rcu() on find_module_all()

The module list has been using RCU in a lot of other calls for a while now, we just overlooked changing this one over to use RCU. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- kernel/module.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/

[PATCH v3 2/4] kmod: reduce atomic operations on kmod_concurrent and simplify

in boot through an init call by simply sticking to 50 as the kmod_concurrent_max. The assumption here is a system with modules must at least have ~16 MiB of RAM. Suggested-by: Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> Suggested-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Ro

[PATCH v3 3/4] kmod: add test driver to stress test the module loader

uch more memory to load a module with a lot of dependencies. Because of 3) and 4) we will easily run into out of memory failures with certain tests. For instance test 0006 fails on qemu with 1024 MiB of RAM. It panics a box after reaping all userspace processes and still not havin

[PATCH v3 4/4] kmod: throttle kmod thread limit

the following run time to run both tests: time ./kmod.sh -t 0008 real0m12.364s user0m0.704s sys 0m5.373s time ./kmod.sh -t 0009 real0m47.638s user0m1.033s sys 0m5.425s Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- kernel/kmod.c

Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] kmod: reduce atomic operations on kmod_concurrent

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:11:00PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:16:27PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > When checking if we want to allow a kmod thread to kick off we increment, > > then read to see if we should enable a thread. If we were o

[PATCH v2 4/5] kmod: add helpers for getting kmod limit

This adds helpers for getting access to the kmod limit from userspace. This knob should help userspace more gracefully and deterministically handle module loading. Cc: Tom Gundersen <t...@jklm.no> Cc: Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mc

[PATCH v2 5/5] kmod: throttle kmod thread limit

the following run time to run both tests: time kmod.sh -t 0008 real0m14.066s user0m1.403s sys 0m5.837s time kmod.sh -t 0009 real0m53.928s user0m1.271s sys 0m7.343s Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- kernel/kmod.c

[PATCH v2 2/5] kmod: reduce atomic operations on kmod_concurrent

atomic_dec_if_positive() atomic_dec_if_positive() atomic_inc() atomic_inc() Suggested-by: Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- include/linux/kmod.h | 2 ++ init/main.c | 1 + k

[PATCH v2 3/5] kmod: add test driver to stress test the module loader

uch more memory to load a module with a lot of dependencies. Because of 3) and 4) we will easily run into out of memory failures with certain tests. For instance test 0006 fails on qemu with 1024 MiB of RAM. It panics a box after reaping all userspace processes and still not havin

[PATCH v2 0/5] kmod: help make deterministic

8.7848.122.ca...@linux.intel.com [4] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux-next.git/log/?h=20170525-kmod-throttle Luis Luis R. Rodriguez (5): module: use list_for_each_entry_rcu() on find_module_all() kmod: reduce atomic operations on kmod_concurrent kmod: add t

[PATCH v2 1/5] module: use list_for_each_entry_rcu() on find_module_all()

The module list has been using RCU in a lot of other calls for a while now, we just overlooked changing this one over to use RCU. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- kernel/module.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/

Re: [PATCH 1/6] kmod: add dynamic max concurrent thread count

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Dmitry Torokhov > <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 08:06:03PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> On Thu, May 25,

Re: [PATCH 1/6] kmod: add dynamic max concurrent thread count

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 08:06:03PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:38:40AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1

Re: [PATCH 1/6] kmod: add dynamic max concurrent thread count

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:38:40AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Dmitry Torokhov > > There is > > no slippery slope for systems to move away, no need to backport > > anything. We seem to agree that a better solution is possible

Re: [PATCH 1/6] kmod: add dynamic max concurrent thread count

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 09:50:15AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dmitry Torokhov >> <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, May

Re: [PATCH 1/6] kmod: add dynamic max concurrent thread count

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:22:01PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:58:29PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:45:29PM -0700,

Re: [PATCH 1/6] kmod: add dynamic max concurrent thread count

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:58:29PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:45:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On May 19, 2017 1:45 PM, "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 a

Re: [PATCH 5/6] kmod: preempt on kmod_umh_threads_get()

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 01:19:31PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Wed 2017-05-24 19:27:38, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 03:00:17AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 05:45:37PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > On T

Re: [PATCH 5/6] kmod: preempt on kmod_umh_threads_get()

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 05:45:37PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:14:52AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 03:27:12PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 08:24:43PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

Re: [PATCH 5/6] kmod: preempt on kmod_umh_threads_get()

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 03:27:12PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 08:24:43PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > In theory it is possible multiple concurrent threads will try to > > kmod_umh_threads_get() and as such atomic_inc(_concurrent) at > > the

Re: [RFC 04/10] kmod: provide wrappers for kmod_concurrent inc/dec

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:08:57PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:57:10PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:05:00AM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:46:25PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: >

Re: [RFC 04/10] kmod: provide wrappers for kmod_concurrent inc/dec

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 07:57:10PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:05:00AM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:46:25PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > On Thu 2016-12-08 22:08:59, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > >

Re: [RFC 00/10] kmod: stress test driver, few fixes and enhancements

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 10:47:51AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Upon running into an old kmod v19 issue with mount (get_fs_type()) a few of us > hunted for the cause of the issue. Although the issue ended up being a > userspace issue, a stress test driver was written to help

Re: [RFC 09/10] kmod: add helpers for getting kmod count and limit

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 08:57:26AM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:56:19PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Thu 2016-12-08 11:49:20, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > This adds helpers for getting access to the kmod count and limit from >

Re: kmod: provide wrappers for kmod_concurrent inc/dec

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 09:07:21PM -0800, Jessica Yu wrote: > +++ Luis R. Rodriguez [08/12/16 11:48 -0800]: > > diff --git a/kernel/kmod.c b/kernel/kmod.c > > index cb6f7ca7b8a5..049d7eabda38 100644 > > --- a/kernel/kmod.c > > +++ b/kernel/kmod.c > > @@ -108,6 +1

Re: [RFC 06/10] kmod: provide sanity check on kmod_concurrent access

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:57:48PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Thu 2016-12-08 11:48:50, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Only decrement *iff* we're possitive. Warn if we've hit > > a situation where the counter is already 0 after we're done > > with a modprobe call, this

Re: [RFC 03/10] kmod: add dynamic max concurrent thread count

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:39:56AM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 04:38:27PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Thu 2016-12-08 11:48:14, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig > > > index 271692a352f1..da2c25746

Re: kmod: add a sanity check on module loading

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 04:53:54PM -0500, Jessica Yu wrote: > +++ Luis R. Rodriguez [06/01/17 21:36 +0100]: > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:34:53AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcg...@kernel.org> writes: > > > > Right, out of

Re: [RFC 10/10] kmod: add a sanity check on module loading

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 05:17:22AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcg...@kernel.org> writes: > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:34:53AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcg...@kernel.org> writes: > >>

Re: kmod: provide wrappers for kmod_concurrent inc/dec

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 08:48:06PM -0800, Jessica Yu wrote: > +++ Luis R. Rodriguez [16/12/16 09:05 +0100]: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:46:25PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > On Thu 2016-12-08 22:08:59, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:

Re: [RFC 10/10] kmod: add a sanity check on module loading

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:34:53AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcg...@kernel.org> writes: > > Right, out of ~350 request_module() calls (not included try requests) > > only ~46 check the return value. Hence a validati

Re: [RFC 10/10] kmod: add a sanity check on module loading

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcg...@kernel.org> writes: >> OK -- if userspace messes up again it may be a bit hard to prove >> unless we have a validation debug thing in place, would such a

Re: [RFC 07/10] kmod: use simplified rate limit printk

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 05:23:50PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Thu 2016-12-08 11:49:01, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Just use the simplified rate limit printk when the max modprobe > > limit is reached, while at it throw out a bone should the error > > be triggered. > &g

Re: [RFC 09/10] kmod: add helpers for getting kmod count and limit

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:56:19PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Thu 2016-12-08 11:49:20, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > This adds helpers for getting access to the kmod count and limit from > > userspace. While at it, this also lets userspace fine tune the kmod > > limi

Re: [RFC 01/10] kmod: add test driver to stress test the module loader

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:10:41PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:24:35PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> > > wrote: > > > 3) finit_module() consumes quite a bit o

Re: [RFC 01/10] kmod: add test driver to stress test the module loader

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:24:35PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: > > The kmod.sh script uses the above constructs to build differnt test cases. > > Typo: different Fixed. > > 3) finit_mo

Re: [RFC 03/10] kmod: add dynamic max concurrent thread count

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:28:07PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: > > diff --git a/kernel/kmod.c b/kernel/kmod.c > > index 0277d1216f80..cb6f7ca7b8a5 100644 > > --- a/kernel/kmod.c > > +++ b

[RFC 07/10] kmod: use simplified rate limit printk

Just use the simplified rate limit printk when the max modprobe limit is reached, while at it throw out a bone should the error be triggered. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- kernel/kmod.c | 10 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff

[RFC 10/10] kmod: add a sanity check on module loading

odprobe into /sbin/ as by default the 'make install' target does not replace your own. This test helps cure test_kmod cases 0008 0009 so enable them. Reported-by: Martin Wilck <martin.wi...@suse.com> Reported-by: Randy Wright <rwri...@hpe.com> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg.

[RFC 05/10] kmod: return -EBUSY if modprobe limit is reached

Running out of our modprobe limit is not a memory limit but a system specific established limitation set to avoid a possible recursive issue with modprobe. This gives userspace a better idea of what happened if we can't load a module, it could use this to wait and try again. Signed-off-by: Luis R

[RFC 04/10] kmod: provide wrappers for kmod_concurrent inc/dec

kmod_concurrent is used as an atomic counter for enabling the allowed limit of modprobe calls, provide wrappers for it to enable this to be expanded on more easily. This will be done later. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- kernel/kmod.c | 27 +---

[RFC 00/10] kmod: stress test driver, few fixes and enhancements

-next.git/log/?h=20161208-kmod-test-driver-try2 [1] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=20161208-kmod-test-driver Luis R. Rodriguez (10): kmod: add test driver to stress test the module loader module: fix memory leak on early load_module() failures kmod: add

[RFC 01/10] kmod: add test driver to stress test the module loader

th 1024 MiB of RAM. It panics a box after reaping all userspace processes and still not having enough memory to reap. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- lib/Kconfig.debug | 25 + lib/Makefile |1 + lib/test_kmod.c

Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] firmware: remove warning at documentation generation time

gt; ./drivers/base/firmware_class.c:1348: WARNING: Bullet list ends without > > a blank line; unexpected unindent. > > > > Signed-off-by: Silvio Fricke <silvio.fri...@gmail.com> > > Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mche...@s-opensource.com> Acked-by: Lu

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] core-api ReST: assoc_array, atomic_ops, local_ops

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:51:29PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Part 4 (firmware_class.c) is a bit off my turf, so I don't think I can > apply it. From what I can tell looking at the history, Andrew Morton > might be a logical target for that patch. I'll review that patch, as I've recently

Re: [RFC] fs: add userspace critical mounts event support

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: > Whatever the outcome of this discussion is -- Johannes seemed to *want* > to further use the UMH by default on *all* async alls... even if the > driver did not explicitly requested it -- I'm concerned a

Re: [RFC] fs: add userspace critical mounts event support

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:46:33PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:08:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:38

Re: [RFC] fs: add userspace critical mounts event support

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:08:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:38:17PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > > > >> I did some shuffling around of those co

Re: [RFC] fs: add userspace critical mounts event support

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:38:17PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > On 09/02/2016 07:20 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > kernel_read_file_from_path() can try to read a file from > > the system's filesystem. This is typically done for firmware > > for instance, which lives in /li

Re: [RFC] fs: add userspace critical mounts event support

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:32:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Note that the races are beyond firmware, so all > > kernel_read_file_from_path() users, as such re-using suc

Re: [RFC] fs: add userspace critical mounts event support

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> I am not sure how/why a firmware loading daemon would be a better >> idea now. What

Re: [RFC] fs: add userspace critical mounts event support

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:41:46AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Herbert, Marc wrote: > > On 03/09/2016 11:10, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >> I was thinking if we kernel could post > >> "conditions" (maybe simple stings) that it waits for,

[PATCH v4 2/5] firmware: annotate thou shalt not request fw on init or probe

gt; Cc: Jiri Slaby <jsl...@suse.com> Cc: linux-ser...@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-ser...@vger.kernel.org Cc: linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- Documentation/firmware_class/README| 22 dri

Re: [RFC] fs: add userspace critical mounts event support

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 02:50:51PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Bjorn Andersson > wrote: > > On Tue 06 Sep 11:32 PDT 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Bjorn Andersson > >> Nobody has actually

Re: [RFC] fs: add userspace critical mounts event support

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 11:32:05AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Bjorn Andersson > wrote: > > > > Linus, I reversed the order of your questions/answers to fit my answer > > better. > > Nobody has actually answered the "why don't we

Re: [RFC] fs: add userspace critical mounts event support

On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 11:10:02AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Dmitry Torokhov > > wrote: > >> > >> Unfortunately module loading and

[RFC] fs: add userspace critical mounts event support

the kernel-parameters using critical_mounts_timeout_ms=T where T is in ms. cat /sys/kernel/critical_mounts_timeout_ms the current system value. When userspace is ready it can simply: echo 1 > /sys/kernel/critical_mounts_ready Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> --- Note, t

Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] firmware: annotate thou shalt not request fw on init or probe

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 09:41:33PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 01:05:44PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> > > wrote: > > Some users want a fully running gfx stack

Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] firmware: annotate thou shalt not request fw on init or probe

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:17:38AM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 05:45:04PM -0700, mcg...@kernel.org wrote: > > [snip] > > --- > > Documentation/firmware_class/README| 20 > > drivers/base/Kconfig | 2 +- > >

Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] firmware: annotate thou shalt not request fw on init or probe

37 Thanks more reading.. :) > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > So .. I agree, let's avoid the hacks. Patches welcomed. > >> > >> Hm, this is a definite change of tack - back when I discussed this &

Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] firmware: annotate thou shalt not request fw on init or probe

Summoning Felix for the embedded aspect on initramfs below. Jörg might be interested in the async facilities you speak of as well. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 01:05:44PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] firmware: annotate thou shalt not request fw on init or probe

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:55:55AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:54 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: > > Thou shalt not make firmware calls early on init or probe. <-- snip --> > > There are 4 offenders at this time: > &

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] Documentation: exclude media documentation from pdf generation

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 06:54:09PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > Although pdflatex is more robust than rst2pdf, building media > documentation pdf still fails. Exclude media documentation from pdf > generation for now. > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula > --- >

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] Documentation: switch to pdflatex for pdf generation

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 06:54:08PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > Looks like rst2pdf is not robust enough, especially for large documents. > > Use recursive make on the Sphinx generated makefile to convert latex to > pdf. The ugly detail is that pdf is generated into > Documentation/output/latex. >

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Documentation: switch to pdflatex and fix pdf build

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 06:54:06PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > Hi Luis, all - > > With these you should be able to get started with pdf generation. It's a > quick transition to pdflatex, the patches are not very pretty, but the > pdf output is. Patch 3/3 works as an example where to add your

[PATCH v2 2/5] firmware: annotate thou shalt not request fw on init or probe

.@systeme.lip6.fr Cc: Alessandro Rubini <rub...@gnudd.com> Cc: Kevin Cernekee <cerne...@gmail.com> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: Jiri Slaby <jsl...@suse.com> Cc: linux-ser...@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-ser...@vger.kernel.o

Re: [PATCH v4 01/44] dma-mapping: Use unsigned long for dma_attrs

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 09:00:41AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:49:47PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Do we not expect the number of argument to grow ? This "cleanup" would > > do away with such possibilities, and then req

Re: [PATCH v4 01/44] dma-mapping: Use unsigned long for dma_attrs

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:44:19PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:23:47PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:16:00PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > The dma-attrs in current form were added around 2008 in 74bc7c

  1   2   >