Re: Oops on 2.4.x invalid procfs i_ino value

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Ouch, 2.4.21; this will be trouble. So next, what patches atop 2.4.21?

On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 04:35:18PM -0600, Brent Casavant wrote:
> I wouldn't worry about the pid=0 issue -- I think it's most likely
> due to the PAGG patches (http://oss.sgi.com/projects/pagg) causing
> some sort of problem at process teardown (all the pid=0 processes are
> in the process of exiting).
> I'm more concerned about the (0 == pid & 0xffff) bug, which is present
> in the unpatched mainline 2.4.x kernel.  It seems that the easiest fix
> is marking such pids as in-use at pidmap allocation, so that they are
> never assigned to real tasks.  I've got the code almost done, but need
> to port it to top-of-tree before submitting a patch.

I see no 0 == pid & 0xffff nor any pidmap in unpatched 2.4.x. Also,
please notice that pid & ~(PID_MAX-1) a.k.a. pid & ~0x7fff a.k.a.
pid & 0xffff8000? And so it appears numerous checks of this form are
already there.

Perhaps the pristine sources are not as pristine as one had hoped?


-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/