Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932522AbWHUCrc (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:47:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932528AbWHUCrc (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:47:32 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]:42806 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932522AbWHUCrb (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:47:31 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=pSDVtH09Zm7qqk6Q5hS/AQiNGvCR89CuFKbENnBoTHVstio57zQKuh40waknfFb8Ib03yxPoHDhH92d7R2h+8uV6nbfK4/5oL76Awj08cieTBdd14s63rJPymsScI7te2Yw4jCPJwepNG5vPZ0JKpWQiwAh+wtIMd0y4rkf4hIg= Message-ID: <18d709710608201947r59c83c92vfd3f2476b705053b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 23:47:30 -0300 From: "Julio Auto" To: "Solar Designer" Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop.c: kernel_thread() retval check Cc: "Willy Tarreau" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060821023217.GA23416@openwall.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060819234629.GA16814@openwall.com> <1156097717.4051.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060820223442.GA21960@openwall.com> <1156115468.4051.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060820225823.GD602@1wt.eu> <18d709710608201859o7f1c8075wab0e71cd85814967@mail.gmail.com> <20060821023217.GA23416@openwall.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1045 Lines: 24 On 8/20/06, Solar Designer wrote: > You need to make sure that the cleanup code added with the patch matches > the loop device initialization preceding the kernel_thread() call. You > should not blindly take the cleanup code out of the 2.4 patch and apply > it to 2.6 - it might not be correct for 2.6. Yes, I already had that in mind, but thanks for the worry, anyway. > No. But you won't be able to reproduce this with strace on 2.6 since > 2.6's kernel_thread() uses CLONE_UNTRACED instead of failing on ptrace. > You'll probably need to temporarily replace the kernel_thread() call in > loop.c with -EAGAIN to comfortably test your cleanup code without > forcing the system to run out of resources. Thanks for the tip. I'll see what I can do. :) Cheers, Julio Auto - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/