Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 12:04:01 +0200 From: Manuel Lauss <manuel.lauss@...glemail.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, "Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] shm: fix a race between shm_exit() and shm_init() On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> wrote: >> >> Reordering the initcalls seems the easiest solution, but it is still very >> fragile... > > So that's what I tried to do, by making it a "pure_initcall()". Even > that didn't seem to be enough according to Manuel. > > Can you try my patch (that makes just that ipc ns init be a > pure_initcall(), together with your hack on top of Andrew's? What is > it that happens so early that even pure_initcall() hasn't been done > yet? I stuck a few printk's in the init path, the first "schedule()" in init/main.c::rest_init() starts it. I don't know enough kernel (yet) to trace it further, sorry. Manuel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.