+15
−11
+1
−0
Loading
Gitlab 现已全面支持 git over ssh 与 git over https。通过 HTTPS 访问请配置带有 read_repository / write_repository 权限的 Personal access token。通过 SSH 端口访问请使用 22 端口或 13389 端口。如果使用CAS注册了账户但不知道密码,可以自行至设置中更改;如有其他问题,请发邮件至 service@cra.moe 寻求协助。
The usbfs code doesn't provide sufficient mutual exclusion among open, release, and remove. Release vs. remove is okay because they both acquire the device lock, but open is not exclusive with either one. All three routines modify the udev->filelist linked list, so they must not run concurrently. Apparently someone gave this a minimum amount of thought in the past by explicitly acquiring the BKL at the start of the usbdev_open routine. Oddly enough, there's a comment pointing out that locking is unnecessary because chrdev_open already has acquired the BKL. But this ignores the point that the files in /proc/bus/usb/* are not char device files; they are regular files and so they don't get any special locking. Furthermore it's necessary to acquire the same lock in the release and remove routines, which the code does not do. Yet another problem arises because the same file_operations structure is accessible through both the /proc/bus/usb/* and /dev/usb/usbdev* file nodes. Even when one of them has been removed, it's still possible for userspace to open the other. So simple locking around the individual remove routines is insufficient; we need to lock the entire usb_notify_remove_device notifier chain. Rather than rely on the BKL, this patch (as723) introduces a new private mutex for the purpose. Holding the BKL while invoking a notifier chain doesn't seem like a good idea. Signed-off-by:Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by:
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE