Balbir Singh wrote:
> Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
>> Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> Paul Menage wrote:
On 2/19/07, Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> More worrisome is the potential for use-after-free. What prevents the
>> pointer at mm->container from referring to freed memory
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
Balbir Singh wrote:
Paul Menage wrote:
On 2/19/07, Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
More worrisome is the potential for use-after-free. What prevents the
pointer at mm->container from referring to freed memory after we're dropped
the lock?
The
Balbir Singh wrote:
> Paul Menage wrote:
>> On 2/19/07, Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
More worrisome is the potential for use-after-free. What prevents the
pointer at mm->container from referring to freed memory after we're dropped
the lock?
>>> The container
Paul Menage wrote:
On 2/19/07, Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
More worrisome is the potential for use-after-free. What prevents the
pointer at mm->container from referring to freed memory after we're dropped
the lock?
The container cannot be freed unless all tasks holding references
On 2/19/07, Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> More worrisome is the potential for use-after-free. What prevents the
> pointer at mm->container from referring to freed memory after we're dropped
> the lock?
>
The container cannot be freed unless all tasks holding references to it are
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:39:33 +0530 Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:07:44 +0530 Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+void memctlr_mm_free(struct mm_struct *mm)
+{
+ kfree(mm->counter);
+}
+
+static inline void
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:39:33 +0530 Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:07:44 +0530 Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> +void memctlr_mm_free(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> +kfree(mm->counter);
> +}
> +
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:07:44 +0530 Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> +void memctlr_mm_free(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >> +{
> >> + kfree(mm->counter);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static inline void memctlr_mm_assign_container_direct(struct mm_struct
> >> *mm,
> >> +
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:07:44 +0530 Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+void memctlr_mm_free(struct mm_struct *mm)
+{
+ kfree(mm->counter);
+}
+
+static inline void memctlr_mm_assign_container_direct(struct mm_struct *mm,
+
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:20:34 +0530 Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This patch adds the basic accounting hooks to account for pages allocated
into the RSS of a process. Accounting is maintained at two levels, in
the mm_struct of each task and in the memory
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:20:34 +0530 Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch adds the basic accounting hooks to account for pages allocated
into the RSS of a process. Accounting is maintained at two levels, in
the mm_struct of each task and in the memory controller
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:07:44 +0530 Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+void memctlr_mm_free(struct mm_struct *mm)
+{
+ kfree(mm-counter);
+}
+
+static inline void memctlr_mm_assign_container_direct(struct mm_struct *mm,
+
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:07:44 +0530 Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+void memctlr_mm_free(struct mm_struct *mm)
+{
+ kfree(mm-counter);
+}
+
+static inline void memctlr_mm_assign_container_direct(struct mm_struct
*mm,
+
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:39:33 +0530 Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:07:44 +0530 Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+void memctlr_mm_free(struct mm_struct *mm)
+{
+kfree(mm-counter);
+}
+
+static inline void
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:39:33 +0530 Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:07:44 +0530 Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+void memctlr_mm_free(struct mm_struct *mm)
+{
+ kfree(mm-counter);
+}
+
+static inline void
On 2/19/07, Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More worrisome is the potential for use-after-free. What prevents the
pointer at mm-container from referring to freed memory after we're dropped
the lock?
The container cannot be freed unless all tasks holding references to it are
gone,
Paul Menage wrote:
On 2/19/07, Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More worrisome is the potential for use-after-free. What prevents the
pointer at mm-container from referring to freed memory after we're dropped
the lock?
The container cannot be freed unless all tasks holding references to
Balbir Singh wrote:
Paul Menage wrote:
On 2/19/07, Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More worrisome is the potential for use-after-free. What prevents the
pointer at mm-container from referring to freed memory after we're dropped
the lock?
The container cannot be freed unless all
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
Balbir Singh wrote:
Paul Menage wrote:
On 2/19/07, Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More worrisome is the potential for use-after-free. What prevents the
pointer at mm-container from referring to freed memory after we're dropped
the lock?
The container
Balbir Singh wrote:
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
Balbir Singh wrote:
Paul Menage wrote:
On 2/19/07, Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More worrisome is the potential for use-after-free. What prevents the
pointer at mm-container from referring to freed memory after we're
dropped
20 matches
Mail list logo
