* [PATCH] fanotify: allow freeze on suspend when waiting for response from userspace
[not found] <CGME20180216094525epcas5p1e52ea815ed7dfb7516578384dedcf5ae@epcas5p1.samsung.com>
@ 2018-02-16 9:44 ` t.vivek
2018-02-16 10:29 ` Jan Kara
[not found] ` <CGME20180216094525epcas5p1e52ea815ed7dfb7516578384dedcf5ae@epcms5p1>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: t.vivek @ 2018-02-16 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jack, amir73il, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
Cc: pankaj.m, Vivek Trivedi, Kunal Shubham
From: Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@samsung.com>
If fanotify userspace response server thread is frozen first,
it may fail to send response from userspace to kernel space listener.
In this scenario, fanotify response listener will never get response
from userepace and fail to suspend.
Use freeze-friendly wait API to handle this issue.
Same problem was reported here:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=232270
Freezing of tasks failed after 20.005 seconds
(1 tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0)
Backtrace:
[<c0582f80>] (__schedule) from [<c05835d0>] (schedule+0x4c/0xa4)
[<c0583584>] (schedule) from [<c01cb648>] (fanotify_handle_event+0x1c8/0x218)
[<c01cb480>] (fanotify_handle_event) from [<c01c8238>] (fsnotify+0x17c/0x38c)
[<c01c80bc>] (fsnotify) from [<c02676dc>] (security_file_open+0x88/0x8c)
[<c0267654>] (security_file_open) from [<c01854b0>] (do_dentry_open+0xc0/0x338)
[<c01853f0>] (do_dentry_open) from [<c0185a38>] (vfs_open+0x54/0x58)
[<c01859e4>] (vfs_open) from [<c0195480>] (do_last.isra.10+0x45c/0xcf8)
[<c0195024>] (do_last.isra.10) from [<c0196140>] (path_openat+0x424/0x600)
[<c0195d1c>] (path_openat) from [<c0197498>] (do_filp_open+0x3c/0x98)
[<c019745c>] (do_filp_open) from [<c0186b44>] (do_sys_open+0x120/0x1e4)
[<c0186a24>] (do_sys_open) from [<c0186c30>] (SyS_open+0x28/0x2c)
[<c0186c08>] (SyS_open) from [<c0010200>] (__sys_trace_return+0x0/0x20)
Signed-off-by: Kunal Shubham <k.shubham@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@samsung.com>
---
fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c
index 6702a6a..1d65899 100644
--- a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c
+++ b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
#include <linux/types.h>
#include <linux/wait.h>
#include <linux/audit.h>
+#include <linux/freezer.h>
#include "fanotify.h"
@@ -63,7 +64,9 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);
- wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
+ while (!event->response)
+ wait_event_freezable(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq,
+ event->response);
/* userspace responded, convert to something usable */
switch (event->response & ~FAN_AUDIT) {
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] fanotify: allow freeze on suspend when waiting for response from userspace
2018-02-16 9:44 ` [PATCH] fanotify: allow freeze on suspend when waiting for response from userspace t.vivek
@ 2018-02-16 10:29 ` Jan Kara
[not found] ` <CGME20180216094525epcas5p1e52ea815ed7dfb7516578384dedcf5ae@epcms5p1>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-02-16 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: t.vivek
Cc: jack, amir73il, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel, pankaj.m, Kunal Shubham
On Fri 16-02-18 15:14:40, t.vivek@samsung.com wrote:
> From: Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@samsung.com>
>
> If fanotify userspace response server thread is frozen first,
> it may fail to send response from userspace to kernel space listener.
> In this scenario, fanotify response listener will never get response
> from userepace and fail to suspend.
>
> Use freeze-friendly wait API to handle this issue.
>
> Same problem was reported here:
> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=232270
>
> Freezing of tasks failed after 20.005 seconds
> (1 tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0)
>
> Backtrace:
> [<c0582f80>] (__schedule) from [<c05835d0>] (schedule+0x4c/0xa4)
> [<c0583584>] (schedule) from [<c01cb648>] (fanotify_handle_event+0x1c8/0x218)
> [<c01cb480>] (fanotify_handle_event) from [<c01c8238>] (fsnotify+0x17c/0x38c)
> [<c01c80bc>] (fsnotify) from [<c02676dc>] (security_file_open+0x88/0x8c)
> [<c0267654>] (security_file_open) from [<c01854b0>] (do_dentry_open+0xc0/0x338)
> [<c01853f0>] (do_dentry_open) from [<c0185a38>] (vfs_open+0x54/0x58)
> [<c01859e4>] (vfs_open) from [<c0195480>] (do_last.isra.10+0x45c/0xcf8)
> [<c0195024>] (do_last.isra.10) from [<c0196140>] (path_openat+0x424/0x600)
> [<c0195d1c>] (path_openat) from [<c0197498>] (do_filp_open+0x3c/0x98)
> [<c019745c>] (do_filp_open) from [<c0186b44>] (do_sys_open+0x120/0x1e4)
> [<c0186a24>] (do_sys_open) from [<c0186c30>] (SyS_open+0x28/0x2c)
> [<c0186c08>] (SyS_open) from [<c0010200>] (__sys_trace_return+0x0/0x20)
Yeah, good catch.
> @@ -63,7 +64,9 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
>
> pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);
>
> - wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
> + while (!event->response)
> + wait_event_freezable(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq,
> + event->response);
But if the process gets a signal while waiting, we will just livelock the
kernel in this loop as wait_event_freezable() will keep returning
ERESTARTSYS. So you need to be a bit more clever here...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread[parent not found: <CGME20180216094525epcas5p1e52ea815ed7dfb7516578384dedcf5ae@epcms5p1>]
* RE: Re: [PATCH] fanotify: allow freeze on suspend when waiting for response from userspace
[not found] ` <CGME20180216094525epcas5p1e52ea815ed7dfb7516578384dedcf5ae@epcms5p1>
@ 2018-02-22 9:44 ` Kunal Shubham
2018-02-22 14:32 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Kunal Shubham @ 2018-02-22 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jack
Cc: VIVEK TRIVEDI, amir73il, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel,
PANKAJ MISHRA, Kunal Shubham
>> On Fri 16-02-18 15:14:40, t.vivek@samsung.com wrote:
>> From: Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@samsung.com>
>>
>> If fanotify userspace response server thread is frozen first,
>> it may fail to send response from userspace to kernel space listener.
>> In this scenario, fanotify response listener will never get response
>> from userepace and fail to suspend.
>>
>> Use freeze-friendly wait API to handle this issue.
>>
>> Same problem was reported here:
>> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=232270
>>
>> Freezing of tasks failed after 20.005 seconds
>> (1 tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0)
>>
>> Backtrace:
>> [<c0582f80>] (__schedule) from [<c05835d0>] (schedule+0x4c/0xa4)
>> [<c0583584>] (schedule) from [<c01cb648>] (fanotify_handle_event+0x1c8/0x218)
>> [<c01cb480>] (fanotify_handle_event) from [<c01c8238>] (fsnotify+0x17c/0x38c)
>> [<c01c80bc>] (fsnotify) from [<c02676dc>] (security_file_open+0x88/0x8c)
>> [<c0267654>] (security_file_open) from [<c01854b0>] (do_dentry_open+0xc0/0x338)
>> [<c01853f0>] (do_dentry_open) from [<c0185a38>] (vfs_open+0x54/0x58)
>> [<c01859e4>] (vfs_open) from [<c0195480>] (do_last.isra.10+0x45c/0xcf8)
>> [<c0195024>] (do_last.isra.10) from [<c0196140>] (path_openat+0x424/0x600)
>> [<c0195d1c>] (path_openat) from [<c0197498>] (do_filp_open+0x3c/0x98)
>> [<c019745c>] (do_filp_open) from [<c0186b44>] (do_sys_open+0x120/0x1e4)
>> [<c0186a24>] (do_sys_open) from [<c0186c30>] (SyS_open+0x28/0x2c)
>> [<c0186c08>] (SyS_open) from [<c0010200>] (__sys_trace_return+0x0/0x20)
>
> Yeah, good catch.
>
>> @@ -63,7 +64,9 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
>>
>> pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);
>>
>> - wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
>> + while (!event->response)
>> + wait_event_freezable(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq,
>> + event->response);
>
> But if the process gets a signal while waiting, we will just livelock the
> kernel in this loop as wait_event_freezable() will keep returning
> ERESTARTSYS. So you need to be a bit more clever here...
Hi Jack,
Thanks for the quick review.
To avoid livelock issue, is it fine to use below change?
If agree, I will send v2 patch.
@@ -63,7 +64,11 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);
- wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
+ while (!event->response) {
+ if (wait_event_freezable(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq,
+ event->response))
+ flush_signals(current);
+ }
Thanks
--------- Original Message ---------
Sender : Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Date : 2018-02-16 15:59 (GMT+5:30)
Title : Re: [PATCH] fanotify: allow freeze on suspend when waiting for response from userspace
To : VIVEK TRIVEDI<t.vivek@samsung.com>
CC : jack@suse.cz, amir73il@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, PANKAJ MISHRA<pankaj.m@samsung.com>, Kunal Shubham<k.shubham@samsung.com>
On Fri 16-02-18 15:14:40, t.vivek@samsung.com wrote:
> From: Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@samsung.com>
>
> If fanotify userspace response server thread is frozen first,
> it may fail to send response from userspace to kernel space listener.
> In this scenario, fanotify response listener will never get response
> from userepace and fail to suspend.
>
> Use freeze-friendly wait API to handle this issue.
>
> Same problem was reported here:
> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=232270
>
> Freezing of tasks failed after 20.005 seconds
> (1 tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0)
>
> Backtrace:
> [<c0582f80>] (__schedule) from [<c05835d0>] (schedule+0x4c/0xa4)
> [<c0583584>] (schedule) from [<c01cb648>] (fanotify_handle_event+0x1c8/0x218)
> [<c01cb480>] (fanotify_handle_event) from [<c01c8238>] (fsnotify+0x17c/0x38c)
> [<c01c80bc>] (fsnotify) from [<c02676dc>] (security_file_open+0x88/0x8c)
> [<c0267654>] (security_file_open) from [<c01854b0>] (do_dentry_open+0xc0/0x338)
> [<c01853f0>] (do_dentry_open) from [<c0185a38>] (vfs_open+0x54/0x58)
> [<c01859e4>] (vfs_open) from [<c0195480>] (do_last.isra.10+0x45c/0xcf8)
> [<c0195024>] (do_last.isra.10) from [<c0196140>] (path_openat+0x424/0x600)
> [<c0195d1c>] (path_openat) from [<c0197498>] (do_filp_open+0x3c/0x98)
> [<c019745c>] (do_filp_open) from [<c0186b44>] (do_sys_open+0x120/0x1e4)
> [<c0186a24>] (do_sys_open) from [<c0186c30>] (SyS_open+0x28/0x2c)
> [<c0186c08>] (SyS_open) from [<c0010200>] (__sys_trace_return+0x0/0x20)
Yeah, good catch.
> @@ -63,7 +64,9 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
>
> pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);
>
> - wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
> + while (!event->response)
> + wait_event_freezable(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq,
> + event->response);
But if the process gets a signal while waiting, we will just livelock the
kernel in this loop as wait_event_freezable() will keep returning
ERESTARTSYS. So you need to be a bit more clever here...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: Re: [PATCH] fanotify: allow freeze on suspend when waiting for response from userspace
2018-02-22 9:44 ` Kunal Shubham
@ 2018-02-22 14:32 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-02-22 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kunal Shubham
Cc: jack, VIVEK TRIVEDI, amir73il, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel,
PANKAJ MISHRA
On Thu 22-02-18 15:14:54, Kunal Shubham wrote:
> >> On Fri 16-02-18 15:14:40, t.vivek@samsung.com wrote:
> >> From: Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@samsung.com>
> >>
> >> If fanotify userspace response server thread is frozen first,
> >> it may fail to send response from userspace to kernel space listener.
> >> In this scenario, fanotify response listener will never get response
> >> from userepace and fail to suspend.
> >>
> >> Use freeze-friendly wait API to handle this issue.
> >>
> >> Same problem was reported here:
> >> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=232270
> >>
> >> Freezing of tasks failed after 20.005 seconds
> >> (1 tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0)
> >>
> >> Backtrace:
> >> [<c0582f80>] (__schedule) from [<c05835d0>] (schedule+0x4c/0xa4)
> >> [<c0583584>] (schedule) from [<c01cb648>] (fanotify_handle_event+0x1c8/0x218)
> >> [<c01cb480>] (fanotify_handle_event) from [<c01c8238>] (fsnotify+0x17c/0x38c)
> >> [<c01c80bc>] (fsnotify) from [<c02676dc>] (security_file_open+0x88/0x8c)
> >> [<c0267654>] (security_file_open) from [<c01854b0>] (do_dentry_open+0xc0/0x338)
> >> [<c01853f0>] (do_dentry_open) from [<c0185a38>] (vfs_open+0x54/0x58)
> >> [<c01859e4>] (vfs_open) from [<c0195480>] (do_last.isra.10+0x45c/0xcf8)
> >> [<c0195024>] (do_last.isra.10) from [<c0196140>] (path_openat+0x424/0x600)
> >> [<c0195d1c>] (path_openat) from [<c0197498>] (do_filp_open+0x3c/0x98)
> >> [<c019745c>] (do_filp_open) from [<c0186b44>] (do_sys_open+0x120/0x1e4)
> >> [<c0186a24>] (do_sys_open) from [<c0186c30>] (SyS_open+0x28/0x2c)
> >> [<c0186c08>] (SyS_open) from [<c0010200>] (__sys_trace_return+0x0/0x20)
> >
> > Yeah, good catch.
> >
> >> @@ -63,7 +64,9 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
> >>
> >> pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);
> >>
> >> - wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
> >> + while (!event->response)
> >> + wait_event_freezable(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq,
> >> + event->response);
> >
> > But if the process gets a signal while waiting, we will just livelock the
> > kernel in this loop as wait_event_freezable() will keep returning
> > ERESTARTSYS. So you need to be a bit more clever here...
>
> Hi Jack,
> Thanks for the quick review.
> To avoid livelock issue, is it fine to use below change?
> If agree, I will send v2 patch.
>
> @@ -63,7 +64,11 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
>
> pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);
>
> - wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
> + while (!event->response) {
> + if (wait_event_freezable(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq,
> + event->response))
> + flush_signals(current);
> + }
Hum, I don't think this is correct either as this way if any signal was
delivered while waiting for fanotify response, we'd just lose it while
previously it has been properly handled. So what I think needs to be done
is that we just use wait_event_freezable() and propagate non-zero return
value (-ERESTARTSYS) up to the caller to handle the signal and restart the
syscall as necessary.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [PATCH] fanotify: allow freeze on suspend when waiting for response from userspace
@ 2018-12-29 22:04 Orion Poplawski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Orion Poplawski @ 2018-12-29 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, Vivek Trivedi, Jan Kara
> On Thu 22-02-18 15:14:54, Kunal Shubham wrote:
>> >> On Fri 16-02-18 15:14:40, t.vivek@samsung.com wrote:
>> >> From: Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@samsung.com>
>> >>
>> >> If fanotify userspace response server thread is frozen first,
>> >> it may fail to send response from userspace to kernel space listener.
>> >> In this scenario, fanotify response listener will never get response
>> >> from userepace and fail to suspend.
>> >>
>> >> Use freeze-friendly wait API to handle this issue.
>> >>
>> >> Same problem was reported here:
>> >> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=232270
>> >>
>> >> Freezing of tasks failed after 20.005 seconds
>> >> (1 tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0)
>> >>
>> >> Backtrace:
>> >> [<c0582f80>] (__schedule) from [<c05835d0>] (schedule+0x4c/0xa4)
>> >> [<c0583584>] (schedule) from [<c01cb648>] (fanotify_handle_event+0x1c8/0x218)
>> >> [<c01cb480>] (fanotify_handle_event) from [<c01c8238>] (fsnotify+0x17c/0x38c)
>> >> [<c01c80bc>] (fsnotify) from [<c02676dc>] (security_file_open+0x88/0x8c)
>> >> [<c0267654>] (security_file_open) from [<c01854b0>] (do_dentry_open+0xc0/0x338)
>> >> [<c01853f0>] (do_dentry_open) from [<c0185a38>] (vfs_open+0x54/0x58)
>> >> [<c01859e4>] (vfs_open) from [<c0195480>] (do_last.isra.10+0x45c/0xcf8)
>> >> [<c0195024>] (do_last.isra.10) from [<c0196140>] (path_openat+0x424/0x600)
>> >> [<c0195d1c>] (path_openat) from [<c0197498>] (do_filp_open+0x3c/0x98)
>> >> [<c019745c>] (do_filp_open) from [<c0186b44>] (do_sys_open+0x120/0x1e4)
>> >> [<c0186a24>] (do_sys_open) from [<c0186c30>] (SyS_open+0x28/0x2c)
>> >> [<c0186c08>] (SyS_open) from [<c0010200>] (__sys_trace_return+0x0/0x20)
>> >
>> > Yeah, good catch.
>> >
>> >> @@ -63,7 +64,9 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
>> >>
>> >> pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);
>> >>
>> >> - wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
>> >> + while (!event->response)
>> >> + wait_event_freezable(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq,
>> >> + event->response);
>> >
>> > But if the process gets a signal while waiting, we will just livelock the
>> > kernel in this loop as wait_event_freezable() will keep returning
>> > ERESTARTSYS. So you need to be a bit more clever here...
>>
>> Hi Jack,
>> Thanks for the quick review.
>> To avoid livelock issue, is it fine to use below change?
>> If agree, I will send v2 patch.
>>
>> @@ -63,7 +64,11 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
>>
>> pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);
>>
>> - wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
>> + while (!event->response) {
>> + if (wait_event_freezable(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq,
>> + event->response))
>> + flush_signals(current);
>> + }
>
> Hum, I don't think this is correct either as this way if any signal was
> delivered while waiting for fanotify response, we'd just lose it while
> previously it has been properly handled. So what I think needs to be done
> is that we just use wait_event_freezable() and propagate non-zero return
> value (-ERESTARTSYS) up to the caller to handle the signal and restart the
> syscall as necessary.
>
> Honza
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR
Is there any progress here? This has become a real pain for us while
running BitDefender on EL7 laptops. I tried applying the following to
the EL7 kernel:
diff -up
linux-3.10.0-957.1.3.el7.x86_64/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c.orig
kernel-3.10.0-957.1.3.el7/linux-3.10.0-957.1.3.el7.x86_64/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c
--- linux-3.10.0-957.1.3.el7.x86_64/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c.orig
2018-11-15 10:07:13.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-3.10.0-957.1.3.el7.x86_64/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c
2018-12-28 15:44:26.452895337 -0700
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
#include <linux/types.h>
#include <linux/wait.h>
#include <linux/audit.h>
+#include <linux/freezer.h>
#include "fanotify.h"
@@ -64,7 +65,12 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct
pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);
- wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
+ while (!event->response) {
+ ret =
wait_event_freezable(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq,
+ event->response);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+ }
/* userspace responded, convert to something usable */
switch (event->response & ~FAN_AUDIT) {
but I get a kernel panic shortly after logging in to the system.
--
Orion Poplawski
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-12-29 22:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <CGME20180216094525epcas5p1e52ea815ed7dfb7516578384dedcf5ae@epcas5p1.samsung.com>
2018-02-16 9:44 ` [PATCH] fanotify: allow freeze on suspend when waiting for response from userspace t.vivek
2018-02-16 10:29 ` Jan Kara
[not found] ` <CGME20180216094525epcas5p1e52ea815ed7dfb7516578384dedcf5ae@epcms5p1>
2018-02-22 9:44 ` Kunal Shubham
2018-02-22 14:32 ` Jan Kara
2018-12-29 22:04 Orion Poplawski
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®