Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Jul 1998 23:59:22 +0100 | From | "Stephen C. Tweedie" <> | Subject | Re: 2.1.110 oops |
| |
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:00:33 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> said:
>> - if (dentry->d_inode) >> + if (dentry && dentry->d_inode)
> I don't think this is a proper fix. You should never have been able to > open a file without a dentry.
Agreed. I've gone through the obvious paths in open_namei and the socket bits, and can't see how we'd get there.
> I missed the beginning of this, how was the oops generated?
---------------------------------------------------------------- I had a kernel Oops on 2.1.110 while trying to get a remote printer bounce to work (Filters don't run on remote printers, so you have to setup a bounce, and the remote computer with a 386 and 8megs ram running X with no swap doesn't cut it).
Dual Pentium 200MHz MMX Tyan 1653D, Tomcat III Intel 82439HX, 82371SB chipset 128 megs memory, NCR53C810 using BSD ported driver Both IDE and SCSI harddrives NE2000 compatible ISA 3Com 3c503 gcc 2.7.2.3 ----------------------------------------------------------------
No other info except for the oops itself. The fact that it's a dual CPU box is probably the only clue to anything unusual: the fact that we're possibly dealing with a chardev shouldn't make any difference since we still can't install the fd until after setting the dentry if we open such a device.
As far as I can see, all calls to fd_install are protected from installing a filp with null f_dentry.
--Stephen
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |