On 14/03/27, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 03/27/2014 01:20 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 14/03/12, James Morris wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >>
> >>> And the same phrase goes to James Morris...
> >>>
> >>> If you are sure that it is safe to use get_task_comm() from
On 14/03/27, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On 03/27/2014 01:20 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/03/12, James Morris wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
And the same phrase goes to James Morris...
If you are sure that it is safe to use get_task_comm() from
On 03/27/2014 01:20 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 14/03/12, James Morris wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>
>>> And the same phrase goes to James Morris...
>>>
>>> If you are sure that it is safe to use get_task_comm() from
>>> dump_common_audit_data() and you prefer locked
On 14/03/12, James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> > And the same phrase goes to James Morris...
> >
> > If you are sure that it is safe to use get_task_comm() from
> > dump_common_audit_data() and you prefer locked version, please pick up below
> > patch via your
On 14/03/12, James Morris wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
And the same phrase goes to James Morris...
If you are sure that it is safe to use get_task_comm() from
dump_common_audit_data() and you prefer locked version, please pick up below
patch via your git tree.
On 03/27/2014 01:20 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 14/03/12, James Morris wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
And the same phrase goes to James Morris...
If you are sure that it is safe to use get_task_comm() from
dump_common_audit_data() and you prefer locked version, please
On 14/03/12, James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > And the same phrase goes to James Morris...
> >
> > If you are sure that it is safe to use get_task_comm() from
> > dump_common_audit_data() and you prefer locked version, please pick up below
> > patch via your git
On 14/03/12, James Morris wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
And the same phrase goes to James Morris...
If you are sure that it is safe to use get_task_comm() from
dump_common_audit_data() and you prefer locked version, please pick up below
patch via your git tree.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> And the same phrase goes to James Morris...
>
> If you are sure that it is safe to use get_task_comm() from
> dump_common_audit_data() and you prefer locked version, please pick up below
> patch via your git tree.
>
> If you are unsure or prefer
And the same phrase goes to James Morris...
If you are sure that it is safe to use get_task_comm() from
dump_common_audit_data() and you prefer locked version, please pick up below
patch via your git tree.
If you are unsure or prefer lockless version, I'll make a lockless version
using
Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > Even if you don't trust the comm= field, it is annoying for me that fields
> > after comm= are missing in the audit log.
>
> More than annoying, that isn't acceptable.
>
OK. If you are sure that it is safe to use get_task_comm() from
audit_log_task() and you prefer
Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
Even if you don't trust the comm= field, it is annoying for me that fields
after comm= are missing in the audit log.
More than annoying, that isn't acceptable.
OK. If you are sure that it is safe to use get_task_comm() from
audit_log_task() and you prefer locked
And the same phrase goes to James Morris...
If you are sure that it is safe to use get_task_comm() from
dump_common_audit_data() and you prefer locked version, please pick up below
patch via your git tree.
If you are unsure or prefer lockless version, I'll make a lockless version
using
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
And the same phrase goes to James Morris...
If you are sure that it is safe to use get_task_comm() from
dump_common_audit_data() and you prefer locked version, please pick up below
patch via your git tree.
If you are unsure or prefer lockless
On 14/03/08, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > > Likewise, audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, current->comm) is racy.
> > > > > If task->comm was "Hello Linux" until
> > > > > audit_string_contains_control() in
> > > > > audit_log_n_untrustedstring() returns false, and
On 14/03/08, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
Likewise, audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, current-comm) is racy.
If task-comm was Hello Linux until
audit_string_contains_control() in
audit_log_n_untrustedstring() returns false, and becomes Penguin
before
Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > Likewise, audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, current->comm) is racy.
> > > > If task->comm was "Hello Linux" until audit_string_contains_control()
> > > > in
> > > > audit_log_n_untrustedstring() returns false, and becomes "Penguin"
> > > > before
> > > >
Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
Likewise, audit_log_untrustedstring(ab, current-comm) is racy.
If task-comm was Hello Linux until audit_string_contains_control()
in
audit_log_n_untrustedstring() returns false, and becomes Penguin
before
memcpy() in audit_log_n_string()
On 14/03/07, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/17/516
> Thank you for pointing that thread out. I found the following comment in that
> thread.
>
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> | What folks?
> |
> | I don't think a new lock (or any lock) is at all
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I would have actually expected it to stop emitting chars at \0. But
> sure. Couldn't care less though; that's what you get, we all know this,
> we've all been through this discussion several times. Get over it
> already.
>
> One of the last threads on this is:
>
>
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
I would have actually expected it to stop emitting chars at \0. But
sure. Couldn't care less though; that's what you get, we all know this,
we've all been through this discussion several times. Get over it
already.
One of the last threads on this is:
On 14/03/07, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/17/516
Thank you for pointing that thread out. I found the following comment in that
thread.
Linus Torvalds wrote:
| What folks?
|
| I don't think a new lock (or any lock) is at all appropriate.
|
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:44:32PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Thank you for reviewing, Paul.
No problem, but you do also need to address Lai Jiangshan's and
Peter Zijlstra's questions about the purpose of this patch. I was
looking at it only from a "does it work?" viewpoint.
> Paul E.
Thank you for reviewing, Paul.
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * set_task_comm - Change task_struct->comm with tracer and perf hooks
> > called.
> > + *
> > + * @tsk: Pointer to "struct task_struct".
> > + * @buf: New comm name.
> > + *
> > + * Returns nothing.
> > + */
> > +void
Thank you for reviewing, Paul.
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
+/**
+ * set_task_comm - Change task_struct-comm with tracer and perf hooks
called.
+ *
+ * @tsk: Pointer to struct task_struct.
+ * @buf: New comm name.
+ *
+ * Returns nothing.
+ */
+void set_task_comm(struct
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:44:32PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
Thank you for reviewing, Paul.
No problem, but you do also need to address Lai Jiangshan's and
Peter Zijlstra's questions about the purpose of this patch. I was
looking at it only from a does it work? viewpoint.
Paul E. McKenney
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:54:01PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > CC scheduler people.
> >
> > I can't figure out what we get with this patch.
> >
> OK. Welcome to this thread. I'll explain you what is going on.
>
> Current problem:
>
> printk("%s\n", task->comm) is
Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> CC scheduler people.
>
> I can't figure out what we get with this patch.
>
OK. Welcome to this thread. I'll explain you what is going on.
Current problem:
printk("%s\n", task->comm) is racy because "%s" format specifier assumes that
the corresponding argument does
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:49:40AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >>From ada6c4d94f5afda36c7c21869d38b7111a6fe9bc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Tetsuo Handa
> > Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:32:11 +0900
> > Subject: [PATCH] Change task_struct->comm to use RC
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:49:40AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
From ada6c4d94f5afda36c7c21869d38b7111a6fe9bc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tetsuo Handa penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:32:11 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Change task_struct-comm to use RCU
Lai Jiangshan wrote:
CC scheduler people.
I can't figure out what we get with this patch.
OK. Welcome to this thread. I'll explain you what is going on.
Current problem:
printk(%s\n, task-comm) is racy because %s format specifier assumes that
the corresponding argument does not change
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:54:01PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
Lai Jiangshan wrote:
CC scheduler people.
I can't figure out what we get with this patch.
OK. Welcome to this thread. I'll explain you what is going on.
Current problem:
printk(%s\n, task-comm) is racy because %s
ncy when memory allocation failed.
>
> Fixed race condition in copy_process().
>
> Regards.
> --
>>From ada6c4d94f5afda36c7c21869d38b7111a6fe9bc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa
> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:32:11 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] Change
d.
>
> Fixed race condition in copy_process().
>
> Regards.
> --
> >From ada6c4d94f5afda36c7c21869d38b7111a6fe9bc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa
> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:32:11 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] Change task_struct->comm to use RCU.
>
> This pa
ada6c4d94f5afda36c7c21869d38b7111a6fe9bc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tetsuo Handa penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:32:11 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Change task_struct-comm to use RCU.
This patch changes task_struct-comm to be updated using RCU
(unless memory allocation fails).
Signed
().
Regards.
--
From ada6c4d94f5afda36c7c21869d38b7111a6fe9bc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tetsuo Handa penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:32:11 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Change task_struct-comm to use RCU.
This patch changes task_struct-comm to be updated
From: Tetsuo Handa
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:32:11 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Change task_struct->comm to use RCU.
This patch changes task_struct->comm to be updated using RCU
(unless memory allocation fails).
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa
--
-love.sakura.ne.jp
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:32:11 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Change task_struct-comm to use RCU.
This patch changes task_struct-comm to be updated using RCU
(unless memory allocation fails).
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp
---
fs/exec.c
38 matches
Mail list logo
