The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
On 5/7/20 12:57 PM, Max Kellermann wrote:
> If an operation's flag `needs_file` is set, the function
> io_req_set_file() calls io_file_get() to obtain a `struct file*`.
>
> This fails for `O_PATH` file descriptors, because those have no
> `struct file*`, causing io_req_set_file() to throw
Hey guys! Sorry this took me a little while to get to, but I was finally able
to sit down for a bit and do a thorough investigation on the latency issues
here to figure out if it's noise or not. I did this investigation with the
plain work_struct implementation, the original kthread
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
If an operation's flag `needs_file` is set, the function
io_req_set_file() calls io_file_get() to obtain a `struct file*`.
This fails for `O_PATH` file descriptors, because those have no
`struct file*`, causing io_req_set_file() to throw `-EBADF`. This
breaks the operations `openat`, `openat2`
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 06:50:46PM +, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:06:31PM -0400, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > Another, perhaps less frequent, use for this option would be
> > as a mean for assuring a security policy (in paranoid mode)
> > case where no single taint is
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
[0.00] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted
>> 5.7.0-rc4-next-20200507 #2
>> [0.00] Call trace:
>> [0.00] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x22c
>> [0.00] show_stack+0x28/0x34
>> [0.00] dump_stack+0x104/0x194
>> [0.00] handl
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
Andy Lutomirski writes:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 7:13 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> trace_hardirqs_on/off() is only partially safe vs. RCU idle. The tracer
>> core itself is safe, but the resulting tracepoints can be utilized by
>> e.g. BPF which is unsafe.
>>
>> Provide variants which do not
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
> -Original Message-
> From: 亿一
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2020 17:47
> To: Winkler, Tomas
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [BUG]is there a refcount leak in function mei_me_cl_rm_by_uuid?
Unfortunately you are correct, but currently it is very hard to hit the issue
in
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:06:31PM -0400, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> Another, perhaps less frequent, use for this option would be
> as a mean for assuring a security policy (in paranoid mode)
> case where no single taint is allowed for the running system.
If used for this purpose then we must add a
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:43:16PM -0400, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 06:22:57PM +, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:06:31PM -0400, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
> > > index 8a176d8727a3..b80ab660d727 100644
>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
On Thu, 07 May 2020 10:55:33 -0700
Joe Perches wrote:
> > If anything, we can teach people to try to understand their fixes, to see
> > if something is really a fix or not. Blindly accepting changes like this,
> > is no different than blindly submitting patches because some tool says its
> > an
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
On 2020-05-07 03:32, Souptick Joarder wrote:
...
OK, so no real problem with any of these callers. I still don't see a
justification for the churn you suggest... Auditting all those code sites
is going to be pretty tedious.
I try to audit all 42 callers of {get|pin}_user_pages_fast() and
On 5/7/20 10:51 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:41:47PM -0700, Anthony Yznaga wrote:
>> Avoid regions of memory that contain preserved pages when computing
>> slots used to select where to put the decompressed kernel.
> This is changing the slot-walking code instead of
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 06:22:57PM +, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:06:31PM -0400, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
> > index 8a176d8727a3..b80ab660d727 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
> > @@ -1217,6
On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 20:22 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Yu-cheng Yu writes:
> > @@ -983,6 +983,7 @@ int copy_xstate_to_kernel(void *kbuf, struct
> > xregs_state *xsave, unsigned int of
> > {
> > unsigned int offset, size;
> > struct xstate_header header;
> > + int last_off;
> >
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
Convert the bq27xxx.txt to yaml format
CC: Pali Rohár
CC: Andrew F. Davis
Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy
---
.../bindings/power/supply/bq27xxx.txt | 56
.../bindings/power/supply/bq27xxx.yaml| 86 +++
2 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
This patch fixes commit -
commit 3ebd2fd0d011 ("IB/sa: Put netlink request into the request list before
sending")'
Above commit adds the query to the request list before ib_nl_snd_msg.
However, if there is a delay in sending out the request (For
eg: Delay due to low memory situation) the timer
[PATCH] IB/sa: Resolving use-after-free in ib_nl_send_msg.
Hi,
This patch is in reply to -
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/24/1076
We have a use-after-free possibility in the ibacm code path -
when the timer(ib_nl_request_timeout) kicks in before ib_nl_snd_msg
has completed sending the query out
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By
Linus,
This includes the following tracing fixes:
- Fix bootconfig causing kernels to fail with CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM enabled
- Fix allocation leaks in bootconfig tool
- Fix a double initialization of a variable
- Fix API bootconfig usage from kprobe boot time events
- Reject NULL location
On 2020-05-07 7:22 pm, Ajay kumar wrote:
On 5/7/20, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 2020-05-06 9:01 pm, vji...@codeaurora.org wrote:
From: Vijayanand Jitta
When ever a new iova alloc request comes iova is always searched
from the cached node and the nodes which are previous to cached
node. So, even
In allocate_e820(), call the EFI get_memory_map() service directly
instead of indirectly via efi_get_memory_map(). This avoids allocation
of a buffer and return of the full EFI memory map, which is not needed
here and would otherwise need to be freed.
Routine allocate_e820() only needs to know
ago
config: microblaze-randconfig-r003-20200507 (attached as .config)
compiler: microblaze-linux-gcc (GCC) 9.3.0
reproduce:
wget
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O
~/bin/make.cross
chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
git checkout
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:38:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 06:10:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Thomas would very much like objtool to understand and generate correct
> > ORC unwind information for the minimal stack swizzle sequence:
> >
> > mov %rsp,
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 10:09:03AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 01:00:06PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:55:35PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 6 May 2020 17:42:40 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > This
; [0.00] UBSAN: null-ptr-deref in drivers/acpi/acpica/tbfadt.c:459:37
> [0.00] member access within null pointer of type 'struct
> acpi_table_fadt'
> [0.00] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted
> 5.7.0-rc4-next-20200507 #2
> [0.00] Call trace:
> [
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:31:31AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> It might be dangerous if an UART port reference clock rate is suddenly
> changed. In particular the 8250 port drivers (and AFAICS most of the tty
> drivers using common clock framework clocks) rely either on the
> exclusive reference
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 04:16:10PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The variable rcqe_sz is being unnecessarily assigned twice, fix this
> by removing one of the duplicates.
>
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Evaluation order violation")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King
> ---
>
On Thu, 7 May 2020, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > > > To get exact count of free and used objects slub have to scan list of
> > > > partial slabs. This may take at long time. Scanning holds spinlock and
> > > > blocks allocations which move partial slabs to per-cpu lists and back.
> > > >
> >
Hi Linus,
Please pull the following Kselftest update for Linux 5.7-rc5.
This Kselftest update for Linux 5.7-rc5 consists of ftrace test
fixes and fix to kvm Makefile for relocatable native/cross builds
and installs.
diff is attached.
thanks,
-- Shuah
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:50:08AM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
Reviewed-by: Peter Xu
--
Peter Xu
From: Yunfeng Ye
Fix the @data and @fd allocations that are leaked in the error path of
apply_xbc().
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/583a49c9-c27a-931d-e6c2-6f63a4b18...@huawei.com
Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu
Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware)
---
601 - 700 of 1840 matches
Mail list logo
