on 2017/10/23 22:03, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>
>> And I think the following patch can solve the bug, right?
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue_internal.h b/kernel/workqueue_internal.h
>> index 8635417..650680c 100644
>> --- a/kernel/workqueue_internal.h
>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue_internal.h
>> @@
on 2017/10/23 22:03, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>
>> And I think the following patch can solve the bug, right?
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue_internal.h b/kernel/workqueue_internal.h
>> index 8635417..650680c 100644
>> --- a/kernel/workqueue_internal.h
>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue_internal.h
>> @@
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 09:34:11AM +0800, Li Bin wrote:
>
>
> on 2017/10/21 23:35, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:57:18PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
> >> Hi Tejun,
> >>
> >> Any comments about this?
> >
> > I think you're confused, or at least can't understand what you're
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 09:34:11AM +0800, Li Bin wrote:
>
>
> on 2017/10/21 23:35, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:57:18PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
> >> Hi Tejun,
> >>
> >> Any comments about this?
> >
> > I think you're confused, or at least can't understand what you're
Hi Bin,
Yes, that's it. thanks.
--
tanxiaofei
On 2017/10/23 9:34, Li Bin wrote:
>
>
> on 2017/10/21 23:35, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:57:18PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
>>> Hi Tejun,
>>>
>>> Any comments about this?
>>
>> I think you're confused, or at least can't understand
Hi Bin,
Yes, that's it. thanks.
--
tanxiaofei
On 2017/10/23 9:34, Li Bin wrote:
>
>
> on 2017/10/21 23:35, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:57:18PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
>>> Hi Tejun,
>>>
>>> Any comments about this?
>>
>> I think you're confused, or at least can't understand
on 2017/10/21 23:35, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:57:18PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
>> Hi Tejun,
>>
>> Any comments about this?
>
> I think you're confused, or at least can't understand what you're
> trying to say. Can you create a rero?
>
Hi Tejun,
The case is as following:
on 2017/10/21 23:35, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:57:18PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
>> Hi Tejun,
>>
>> Any comments about this?
>
> I think you're confused, or at least can't understand what you're
> trying to say. Can you create a rero?
>
Hi Tejun,
The case is as following:
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 08:35:22AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:57:18PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
> > Hi Tejun,
> >
> > Any comments about this?
>
> I think you're confused, or at least can't understand what you're
> trying to say. Can you create a rero?
Sorry, I meant
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 08:35:22AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:57:18PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
> > Hi Tejun,
> >
> > Any comments about this?
>
> I think you're confused, or at least can't understand what you're
> trying to say. Can you create a rero?
Sorry, I meant
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:57:18PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
> Hi Tejun,
>
> Any comments about this?
I think you're confused, or at least can't understand what you're
trying to say. Can you create a rero?
Thanks.
--
tejun
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 02:57:18PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
> Hi Tejun,
>
> Any comments about this?
I think you're confused, or at least can't understand what you're
trying to say. Can you create a rero?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Hi Tejun,
Any comments about this?
Thanks
On 2017/9/27 17:17, tanxiaofei wrote:
>
>
> On 2017/9/25 23:25, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 05:04:24PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
>>> Hi Tejun & Jiangshan,
>>>
>>> I find an null pointer risk in the code of workqueue. Here
Hi Tejun,
Any comments about this?
Thanks
On 2017/9/27 17:17, tanxiaofei wrote:
>
>
> On 2017/9/25 23:25, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 05:04:24PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
>>> Hi Tejun & Jiangshan,
>>>
>>> I find an null pointer risk in the code of workqueue. Here
On 2017/9/25 23:25, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 05:04:24PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
>> Hi Tejun & Jiangshan,
>>
>> I find an null pointer risk in the code of workqueue. Here is description:
>>
>> If draining, __queue_work() will call the function is_chained_work() to
On 2017/9/25 23:25, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 05:04:24PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
>> Hi Tejun & Jiangshan,
>>
>> I find an null pointer risk in the code of workqueue. Here is description:
>>
>> If draining, __queue_work() will call the function is_chained_work() to
Hello,
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 05:04:24PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
> Hi Tejun & Jiangshan,
>
> I find an null pointer risk in the code of workqueue. Here is description:
>
> If draining, __queue_work() will call the function is_chained_work() to do
> some checks.
> In is_chained_work(),
Hello,
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 05:04:24PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
> Hi Tejun & Jiangshan,
>
> I find an null pointer risk in the code of workqueue. Here is description:
>
> If draining, __queue_work() will call the function is_chained_work() to do
> some checks.
> In is_chained_work(),
Hi Tejun & Jiangshan,
I find an null pointer risk in the code of workqueue. Here is description:
If draining, __queue_work() will call the function is_chained_work() to do some
checks.
In is_chained_work(), worker->current_pwq is used directly. It should be not
safe.
Hi Tejun & Jiangshan,
I find an null pointer risk in the code of workqueue. Here is description:
If draining, __queue_work() will call the function is_chained_work() to do some
checks.
In is_chained_work(), worker->current_pwq is used directly. It should be not
safe.
20 matches
Mail list logo
