> I'm not sure if I should be sending an oops from a Debian 2.4.18 kernel
> or not? ... this may be useful. I'm not subscribed to the list.
>
> kernel: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000081
> kernel: Call Trace: [link_path_walk+889/2008] [path_walk+26/28] [open_namei+131/1596] [filp_open+59/92] [sys_open+54/204]
>
> These patches were applied:
>
> * NFS client seekdir patch
> http://www.fys.uio.no/~trondmy/src/
How well have the changes to link_path_walk() included in the 2.4.18 patches
listed above been tested? Has Al Viro reviewed them? They look suspect to me
as they are in the function causing the problem:
> +return_reval:
> + /*
> + * We bypassed the ordinary revalidation routines.
> + * Check the cached dentry for staleness.
> + */
> + dentry = nd->dentry;
> + if (dentry && dentry->d_op && dentry->d_op->d_revalidate) {
> + err = -ESTALE;
> + if (!dentry->d_op->d_revalidate(dentry, 0)) {
> + d_invalidate(dentry);
> + break;
> + }
> + }
Just my $0.02
Hanna
-
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/