Oops with tmpfs on both 2.4.22 & 2.6.0-test11
From: James W McMechan (mcmechanjw_at_juno.com)
Date: 11/30/03
- Previous message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: Better performance with pdc20376 compared to SiI 3112"
- Next in thread: William Lee Irwin III: "Re: Oops with tmpfs on both 2.4.22 & 2.6.0-test11"
- Reply: William Lee Irwin III: "Re: Oops with tmpfs on both 2.4.22 & 2.6.0-test11"
- Maybe reply: James W McMechan: "Re: Oops with tmpfs on both 2.4.22 & 2.6.0-test11"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:57:26 -0800
I have a test program much shorter then the Oops
If someone wants to work from a Oops I will send
one, no maintainer was listed and the last Google
reference is about 2 years back, and it does not
seem to be about this issue.
This Oops both 2.4.22 and 2.6.0-test11
It results from a ARCH=um bugreport and
I kept making the test program shorter
This seems silly but one line to Oops?
/* by James_McMechan at hotmail com */
/* test2 program to Oops shmfs mounted at /dev/shm */
/* yes it is dumb but unprivileged users should not be able */
/* to Oops the kernel regardless of how dumb the program */
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <dirent.h>
main()
{/* off 0 is "." off 1 is ".." off 2 is empty */
seekdir(opendir("/dev/shm"), (off_t) 2);
}
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
-
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/
- Previous message: Jeff Garzik: "Re: Better performance with pdc20376 compared to SiI 3112"
- Next in thread: William Lee Irwin III: "Re: Oops with tmpfs on both 2.4.22 & 2.6.0-test11"
- Reply: William Lee Irwin III: "Re: Oops with tmpfs on both 2.4.22 & 2.6.0-test11"
- Maybe reply: James W McMechan: "Re: Oops with tmpfs on both 2.4.22 & 2.6.0-test11"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
- Re: Oops with tmpfs on both 2.4.22 & 2.6.0-test11
... > I have a test program much shorter then the Oops ... send
the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ... (Linux-Kernel) - Re: Oops with tmpfs on both 2.4.22 & 2.6.0-test11
... >Please post the oops. ... I still think the one line test program
was easier... ... The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! ...
send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ... (Linux-Kernel) - [13/37] cgroup: fix a race condition in manipulating tsk->cg_list
... 2.6.25-stable review patch. ... When I ran a test program to fork mass processes
and at the same time ... Actually sometimes I got oops on list_del, ... And I can
change my test program a bit to trigger other oops. ... (Linux-Kernel) - Re: Oops with tmpfs on both 2.4.22 & 2.6.0-test11
... I have a test program which will generate the Oops easily. ... No maintainer
was listed for tmpfs and the best Google reference is ... (Linux-Kernel) - Re: Oops with tmpfs on both 2.4.22 & 2.6.0-test11
... I have a test program which will generate the Oops easily. ... >>
Hugh Dickins is highly clueful and generally maintains tmpfs. ... the cursor dentry
by putting it right at the beginning of the d_subdirs ... (Linux-Kernel)