similar to: [PATCH linux-next] xen/multicall: xen_mc_callback(): avoid buffer overflow

This is my current set of updates to Xen for 2.6.24. This is largely a bugfix set, and a couple of them are also relevent to 2.6.23. These are in the pre-x86 merge form; I'll update them once the merge goes into git. Quick overview: - remove some dead code in arch/i386/mm/init.c - clean up some duplicate includes - when sending an IPI, yield the vcpu if the destination doesn't have

This is my current set of updates to Xen for 2.6.24. This is largely a bugfix set, and a couple of them are also relevent to 2.6.23. These are in the pre-x86 merge form; I'll update them once the merge goes into git. Quick overview: - remove some dead code in arch/i386/mm/init.c - clean up some duplicate includes - when sending an IPI, yield the vcpu if the destination doesn't have

This is my current set of updates to Xen for 2.6.24. This is largely a bugfix set, and a couple of them are also relevent to 2.6.23. These are in the pre-x86 merge form; I'll update them once the merge goes into git. Quick overview: - remove some dead code in arch/i386/mm/init.c - clean up some duplicate includes - when sending an IPI, yield the vcpu if the destination doesn't have

b->args[] has MC_ARGS elements, so the comparison here should be ">=" instead of ">". Otherwise we read past the end of the array one space. Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27 at gmail.com> --- This is a static checker patch and I haven't tested it. Please review carefully. diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/multicalls.c b/arch/x86/xen/multicalls.c index

b->args[] has MC_ARGS elements, so the comparison here should be ">=" instead of ">". Otherwise we read past the end of the array one space. Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27 at gmail.com> --- This is a static checker patch and I haven't tested it. Please review carefully. diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/multicalls.c b/arch/x86/xen/multicalls.c index

b->args[] has MC_ARGS elements, so the comparison here should be ">=" instead of ">". Otherwise we read past the end of the array one space. Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27 at gmail.com> --- This is a static checker patch and I haven't tested it. Please review carefully. diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/multicalls.c b/arch/x86/xen/multicalls.c index

Hi Linus, Here's a set of patches to update paravirt_ops and Xen for 2.6.24 A quick overview of the patchset: paravirt_ops: Remove the monolithic paravirt_ops structure, and replace it with smaller structures of related functions. Also, clean up the handling of lazy mode to make it easier to implement. x86/mm/init.c: remove a chunk of dead code Xen: - remove duplicate includes -

Hi Linus, Here's a set of patches to update paravirt_ops and Xen for 2.6.24 A quick overview of the patchset: paravirt_ops: Remove the monolithic paravirt_ops structure, and replace it with smaller structures of related functions. Also, clean up the handling of lazy mode to make it easier to implement. x86/mm/init.c: remove a chunk of dead code Xen: - remove duplicate includes -

Hi Linus, Here's a set of patches to update paravirt_ops and Xen for 2.6.24 A quick overview of the patchset: paravirt_ops: Remove the monolithic paravirt_ops structure, and replace it with smaller structures of related functions. Also, clean up the handling of lazy mode to make it easier to implement. x86/mm/init.c: remove a chunk of dead code Xen: - remove duplicate includes -

This is my question: it is possible to call from one phone many others phones in the same time, like an "active" MeetMe function? I.e.: I make a call with a specified number. Asterisk lets ring many telephones together (like a group call). Then anyone that answer can hear and speak like MeetMe. Thanks for any answer. Alex

Hi, on ia64, the do_* functions for hypercalls are called in C. However, they are not declared in any .h file. I think it is cleaner to declare them in an header file rather than locally. The question is in which header file. Thank you for any suggestion. The do_* functions are at least: extern long do_ni_hypercall(void); extern long do_dom0_op(dom0_op_t *u_dom0_op); extern long

Hi all, I have a question concerning ActionWebService XMLRPC servers: Is it possible to send multicall requests to the Web service? I tried to use multicall and get the error message: no such method ''system.multicall'' on API [MyAPI] In Changeset 2021 there is the following commit message: add ''system.multicall'' support to XML-RPC. boxcarred methods must

-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. ------------------ From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> patch 9f79991d4186089e228274196413572cc000143b in mainline. When a pagetable is no longer in use, it must be unpinned so that its pages can be freed. However, this is only possible if there are no stray uses of the pagetable. The code currently deals

-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. ------------------ From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> patch 9f79991d4186089e228274196413572cc000143b in mainline. When a pagetable is no longer in use, it must be unpinned so that its pages can be freed. However, this is only possible if there are no stray uses of the pagetable. The code currently deals

Package: linux-2.6 Version: 2.6.32-26~bpo50+1 Severity: important --- Please enter the report below this line. --- I've installed the following packages an lenny, which are working well on other maschines. # dpkg -l | grep xen | grep bpo ii libxenstore3.0 4.0.1-1~bpo50+1 Xenstore communications library for Xen ii linux-image-2.6.32-bpo.5-xen-686 2.6.32-26~bpo50+1 Linux 2.6.32 for modern

(This is a resend of my earlier message which may still be awaiting moderator approval for size reasons. Please Cc me on replies.) Hi, I'm not sure this is the right forum for messages like this, please redirect me if not. Please also Cc me in either case. Last week I upgraded my Xen HA setup (two hosts) to sqeeze. The upgrade itself was smooth, thanks for the nice work! Also the

Hi all, This little series adds a new transaction-like abstraction for doing RMW updates to a pte, hooks it into paravirt_ops, and then makes use of it in Xen. The basic problem is that mprotect is very slow under Xen (up to 50x slower than native), primarily because of the ptent = ptep_get_and_clear(mm, addr, pte); ptent = pte_modify(ptent, newprot); /* ... */ set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte,

Hi all, This little series adds a new transaction-like abstraction for doing RMW updates to a pte, hooks it into paravirt_ops, and then makes use of it in Xen. The basic problem is that mprotect is very slow under Xen (up to 50x slower than native), primarily because of the ptent = ptep_get_and_clear(mm, addr, pte); ptent = pte_modify(ptent, newprot); /* ... */ set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte,

Hi all, This little series adds a new transaction-like abstraction for doing RMW updates to a pte, hooks it into paravirt_ops, and then makes use of it in Xen. The basic problem is that mprotect is very slow under Xen (up to 50x slower than native), primarily because of the ptent = ptep_get_and_clear(mm, addr, pte); ptent = pte_modify(ptent, newprot); /* ... */ set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte,

Hi all, [ Change since last post: change name to ptep_modify_prot_, on the grounds that it isn't really a general pte-modification interface. ] This little series adds a new transaction-like abstraction for doing RMW updates to a pte, hooks it into paravirt_ops, and then makes use of it in Xen. The basic problem is that mprotect is very slow under Xen (up to 50x slower than native),