From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.12] helo=sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1By7Rv-0006AF-Qa for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 04:20:47 -0700 Received: from hirsch.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.6] ident=root) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.34) id 1By7Rv-00058r-14 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 04:20:47 -0700 From: Gerd Knorr Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [patch] mconsole_proc rewrite (and crash fix). Message-ID: <20040820110817.GA21170@bytesex> References: <20040719204008.GA15091@bytesex> <200408111957.40575.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200408111957.40575.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:08:17 +0200 To: BlaisorBlade Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Jeff Dike On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 07:57:40PM +0200, BlaisorBlade wrote: ^^^^^^ Did the mail really travel that long, or is your clock broken? > Actually the exec command cannot send anything to the mconsole, but since it > invokes sh -c it allows for redirections to new consoles. Having the output go directly to mconsole is much easier to handle through. > > The old code had the problem that the kernel crashed after calling > > "uml_mconsole proc " a few times. I havn't tracked what > > exactly causes the problem, I guess trying to access the procfs without > > actually mounting it somewhere causes some corruption of kernel data > > structures. > > Who said that he didn't have mounted /proc inside the guest? Code looks like that, as it uses get_filesystem and all that instead of doing a simple /proc/... path lookup. What is the point of doing it that way, other than make it work even if procfs is not mounted below /proc? > However, I see basically two bugs: > 1) why put_filesystem is not called at the end? It is called earlier, right after ->get_sb() call. Which looks sane to me, as a successfull get_sb() should increase the refcount and thus releasing the filesystems afterwards should be safe. I'm no VFS expert through. Gerd -- return -ENOSIG; ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33 Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift. http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285 _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel