1. 25 5月, 2011 4 次提交
  2. 17 5月, 2011 1 次提交
  3. 11 5月, 2011 4 次提交
  4. 10 5月, 2011 1 次提交
    • M
      Don't lock guardpage if the stack is growing up · a09a79f6
      Mikulas Patocka 提交于
      Linux kernel excludes guard page when performing mlock on a VMA with
      down-growing stack. However, some architectures have up-growing stack
      and locking the guard page should be excluded in this case too.
      
      This patch fixes lvm2 on PA-RISC (and possibly other architectures with
      up-growing stack). lvm2 calculates number of used pages when locking and
      when unlocking and reports an internal error if the numbers mismatch.
      
      [ Patch changed fairly extensively to also fix /proc/<pid>/maps for the
        grows-up case, and to move things around a bit to clean it all up and
        share the infrstructure with the /proc bits.
      
        Tested on ia64 that has both grow-up and grow-down segments  - Linus ]
      Signed-off-by: NMikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
      Tested-by: NTony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com>
      Cc: stable@kernel.org
      Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      a09a79f6
  5. 19 4月, 2011 1 次提交
  6. 31 3月, 2011 1 次提交
  7. 28 3月, 2011 1 次提交
  8. 24 3月, 2011 18 次提交
  9. 23 3月, 2011 5 次提交
  10. 10 3月, 2011 1 次提交
  11. 08 3月, 2011 1 次提交
    • A
      unfuck proc_sysctl ->d_compare() · dfef6dcd
      Al Viro 提交于
      a) struct inode is not going to be freed under ->d_compare();
      however, the thing PROC_I(inode)->sysctl points to just might.
      Fortunately, it's enough to make freeing that sucker delayed,
      provided that we don't step on its ->unregistering, clear
      the pointer to it in PROC_I(inode) before dropping the reference
      and check if it's NULL in ->d_compare().
      
      b) I'm not sure that we *can* walk into NULL inode here (we recheck
      dentry->seq between verifying that it's still hashed / fetching
      dentry->d_inode and passing it to ->d_compare() and there's no
      negative hashed dentries in /proc/sys/*), but if we can walk into
      that, we really should not have ->d_compare() return 0 on it!
      Said that, I really suspect that this check can be simply killed.
      Nick?
      Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
      dfef6dcd
  12. 03 3月, 2011 1 次提交
  13. 15 2月, 2011 1 次提交