On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> At least out_of_memory() calls has_intersects_mems_allowed()
> without even rcu_read_lock(), this is obviously buggy.
>
> Add the necessary rcu_read_lock(). This means that we can not
> simply return from the loop, we need "bool ret" and "break".
>
>
On Wed 04-12-13 14:04:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> At least out_of_memory() calls has_intersects_mems_allowed()
> without even rcu_read_lock(), this is obviously buggy.
>
> Add the necessary rcu_read_lock(). This means that we can not
> simply return from the loop, we need "bool ret" and "break".
>
At least out_of_memory() calls has_intersects_mems_allowed()
without even rcu_read_lock(), this is obviously buggy.
Add the necessary rcu_read_lock(). This means that we can not
simply return from the loop, we need "bool ret" and "break".
While at it, swap the names of task_struct's (the
At least out_of_memory() calls has_intersects_mems_allowed()
without even rcu_read_lock(), this is obviously buggy.
Add the necessary rcu_read_lock(). This means that we can not
simply return from the loop, we need bool ret and break.
While at it, swap the names of task_struct's (the argument
On Wed 04-12-13 14:04:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
At least out_of_memory() calls has_intersects_mems_allowed()
without even rcu_read_lock(), this is obviously buggy.
Add the necessary rcu_read_lock(). This means that we can not
simply return from the loop, we need bool ret and break.
While
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
At least out_of_memory() calls has_intersects_mems_allowed()
without even rcu_read_lock(), this is obviously buggy.
Add the necessary rcu_read_lock(). This means that we can not
simply return from the loop, we need bool ret and break.
While at it,
6 matches
Mail list logo