Herbert,
Monday 26 November 2007 20:07, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 11:18:45AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
I'm just going to revert this patch for 2.6.24 since we've lived
with this race for so long anyway.
Actually, instead of reverting it completely I'm just going to
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 11:18:45AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
I'm just going to revert this patch for 2.6.24 since we've lived
with this race for so long anyway.
Actually, instead of reverting it completely I'm just going to
remove the newly added locks which should be just as effective.
This
Hello Herbert,
Wednesday 10 October 2007 09:48, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 01:33:07PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
I would be more careful with the changelog description for
something like this in the future. It sounds like this
patch will cause us to touch userspace with
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 12:03:46PM +0900, Masahide NAKAMURA wrote:
With SMP enabled kernel, I found a lock problem at xfrm_state_walk()
path with the patch on current net-2.6.25. Its log is circular locking
dependency detected.
Thanks. Ingo Molnar reported that too.
I'm just going to revert
[IPSEC]: Lock state when copying non-atomic fields to user-space
This patch adds locking so that when we're copying non-atomic fields such as
life-time or coaddr to user-space we don't get a partial result.
For af_key I've changed every instance of pfkey_xfrm_state2msg apart from
expiration
From: Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:36:36 +0800
[IPSEC]: Lock state when copying non-atomic fields to user-space
This patch adds locking so that when we're copying non-atomic fields such as
life-time or coaddr to user-space we don't get a partial result.
For
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 01:33:07PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
I would be more careful with the changelog description for
something like this in the future. It sounds like this
patch will cause us to touch userspace with locks held,
which obviously only works in very limited scenerios
and is
