Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Apr 1999 11:59:31 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Trapping/tracing kernel stack overflows |
| |
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: [snip] > Any process that is that deep probably has a > lot of locks. Just dying would probably kill > everything anyway. AFAIK the linux kernel has no > machanism for undoing locks held by a faulting > process. If it did you'd be able to use the > floppy drive after the fat module had segfaulted > on a bad floppy.
Yes, it's the common problem with all kernel-mode faults. The problem being: you don't know *who* had set the lock/spinlock/semaphore, increased the usage counter, etc. and which resources were held by dying process. Any attempt to store this information (i.e. do equivalent of destructors) will have a nasty side-effect - we'll slow down a lot of stuff on nearly every time-critical path ;-/ So the current behaviour is least of two evils - after all, it doesn't punish correct code.
- 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.tux.org/lkml/
| |