Hi,
[ sry for late responses. Two weeks of holiday and trying to go
through all the emails... ]
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015, Li Bin wrote:
> There is a potential race as following:
>
> CPU0 | CPU1
> -|---
>
Hi,
[ sry for late responses. Two weeks of holiday and trying to go
through all the emails... ]
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015, Li Bin wrote:
> There is a potential race as following:
>
> CPU0 | CPU1
> -|---
>
On Tue 2015-12-01 15:28:19, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 12/01/2015, 03:13 PM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > @@ -612,7 +612,19 @@ static ssize_t enabled_store(struct kobject *kobj,
> > struct kobj_attribute *attr,
> >
> > patch =
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:50:23AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 12/01/2015, 02:11 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > When I try to recreate something similar by putting a delay in
> > enabled_store(), klp_free_patch() just sleeps on its call to
> > kobject_put() until enabled_store() returns. The
On 12/01/2015, 03:13 PM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> @@ -612,7 +612,19 @@ static ssize_t enabled_store(struct kobject *kobj,
> struct kobj_attribute *attr,
>
> patch = container_of(kobj, struct klp_patch, kobj);
>
> -
On Tue 2015-12-01 09:50:23, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 12/01/2015, 02:11 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > When I try to recreate something similar by putting a delay in
> > enabled_store(), klp_free_patch() just sleeps on its call to
> > kobject_put() until enabled_store() returns. The unregister stack
On 12/01/2015, 02:11 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> When I try to recreate something similar by putting a delay in
> enabled_store(), klp_free_patch() just sleeps on its call to
> kobject_put() until enabled_store() returns. The unregister stack looks
> like:
>
> [] __kernfs_remove+0x1fb/0x380
>
On Tue 2015-12-01 15:28:19, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 12/01/2015, 03:13 PM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > @@ -612,7 +612,19 @@ static ssize_t enabled_store(struct kobject *kobj,
> > struct kobj_attribute *attr,
> >
> > patch =
On 12/01/2015, 02:11 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> When I try to recreate something similar by putting a delay in
> enabled_store(), klp_free_patch() just sleeps on its call to
> kobject_put() until enabled_store() returns. The unregister stack looks
> like:
>
> [] __kernfs_remove+0x1fb/0x380
>
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:50:23AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 12/01/2015, 02:11 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > When I try to recreate something similar by putting a delay in
> > enabled_store(), klp_free_patch() just sleeps on its call to
> > kobject_put() until enabled_store() returns. The
On Tue 2015-12-01 09:50:23, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 12/01/2015, 02:11 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > When I try to recreate something similar by putting a delay in
> > enabled_store(), klp_free_patch() just sleeps on its call to
> > kobject_put() until enabled_store() returns. The unregister stack
On 12/01/2015, 03:13 PM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> @@ -612,7 +612,19 @@ static ssize_t enabled_store(struct kobject *kobj,
> struct kobj_attribute *attr,
>
> patch = container_of(kobj, struct klp_patch, kobj);
>
> -
Hi Josh,
on 2015/12/1 9:11, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:54:37AM +0800, Li Bin wrote:
>> There is a potential race as following:
>>
>> CPU0 | CPU1
>> -|---
>> enabled_store() |
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:54:37AM +0800, Li Bin wrote:
> There is a potential race as following:
>
> CPU0 | CPU1
> -|---
> enabled_store() | klp_unregister_patch()
> |
On Mon 2015-11-30 11:54:37, Li Bin wrote:
> There is a potential race as following:
>
> CPU0 | CPU1
> -|---
> enabled_store() | klp_unregister_patch()
> |
Hi Josh,
on 2015/12/1 9:11, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:54:37AM +0800, Li Bin wrote:
>> There is a potential race as following:
>>
>> CPU0 | CPU1
>> -|---
>> enabled_store() |
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:54:37AM +0800, Li Bin wrote:
> There is a potential race as following:
>
> CPU0 | CPU1
> -|---
> enabled_store() | klp_unregister_patch()
> |
On Mon 2015-11-30 11:54:37, Li Bin wrote:
> There is a potential race as following:
>
> CPU0 | CPU1
> -|---
> enabled_store() | klp_unregister_patch()
> |
There is a potential race as following:
CPU0 | CPU1
-|---
enabled_store() | klp_unregister_patch()
| |-mutex_lock(_mutex);
|-mutex_lock(_mutex);|
There is a potential race as following:
CPU0 | CPU1
-|---
enabled_store() | klp_unregister_patch()
| |-mutex_lock(_mutex);
|-mutex_lock(_mutex);|
20 matches
Mail list logo
